Glaucoma Board decisions

The Veteran's claims to reopen his service connection claims for psychiatric disorder and duodenal ulcer have been remanded. The Board also requested additional medical examinations to determine the nature and etiology of any current disorders.

The Board found no evidence of diabetes mellitus or glaucoma being incurred in service and denied both claims. For diabetes, the Veteran did not have a current disability as it was not diagnosed until years after separation from service. For glaucoma, there is no indication that it began during service.

The Veteran's service connection claim for PTSD, Parkinson's disease, CAD, glaucoma, kidney disability, sleep apnea, hypertension, and sinusitis is granted due to exposure to herbicides during his service in Vietnam.

The Board found that the Veteran's blindness in his right eye was not incurred or aggravated by service, and is not presumed to have been incurred due to exposure to Agent Orange. The condition is deemed to be a result of diabetes mellitus, which is already service-connected.

The Board finds that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of glaucoma and therefore, service connection for this condition is denied.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for a bilateral eye disability, including glaucoma, is being remanded due to the need for an adequate medical opinion regarding etiology and aggravation by service-connected conditions.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded to the RO for additional development, including obtaining VA and private treatment records, scheduling a VA examination, and considering all evidence of record.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's current left eye disability is not related to service and therefore denied his claim for service connection.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal for service connection for a chest injury and hyperlipidemia prior to the Board's decision.

The Board has decided that additional development is needed before the claims can be adjudicated, including obtaining service personnel records and Social Security Administration records.

The Board found that the Veteran's current glaucoma is not related to his period of active military service and is not proximately due to or the result of his service-connected disability on either a causation or aggravation basis, thus denying the claim for service connection.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for a bilateral eye condition, including POAG, cataracts, and presbyopia is being remanded due to the need for additional development.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for additional development, including verification of his military service periods and a medical opinion regarding the etiology of his current shoulder disabilities.

The Veteran's right eye disorder, including decreased visual acuity and visual field deficit, was granted an increased rating to 20 percent effective from October 14, 2011. The original 10 percent rating for the right eye disorder remains in effect.

The Veteran's diabetes mellitus, type II, is rated at 40 percent since November 18, 2004. His erectile dysfunction remains noncompensable.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims of service connection for left shoulder disability, back disability, glaucoma, and bilateral hearing loss. The claim for initial rating for depression was also denied.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for glaucoma, finding that there was no evidence linking his claimed condition to military service or any service-connected disability.

The Board has granted service connection for bilateral cataracts, bilateral primary open angle glaucoma, and bilateral macular drusen as secondary to the Veteran's service-connected diabetes mellitus.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's glaucoma is not related to his service, including head trauma sustained while boxing in service. The preponderance of evidence does not support a finding that the glaucoma was incurred or aggravated by service.

The Board found that the appellant was permanently incapable of self-support due to her congenital glaucoma and blindness prior to turning 18, but also noted her subsequent employment history. The Court ruled that the Board did not adequately address whether her current employment is solely for charitable or sympathetic reasons.