Glaucoma Board decisions

The Board denied the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for glaucoma and his claim for a total disability evaluation based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities. The Board found that new and material evidence had not been received to reopen the glaucoma claim, and determined that the Veteran did not meet the criteria for a TDIU.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities do not meet the criteria for a TDIU rating due to their combined disability rating of 40 percent, which does not exceed the percentage requirements set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). However, his right knee and other service-connected disabilities prevent him from obtaining or retaining substantially gainful employment.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for cornea injury with loss of vision and glaucoma with cataracts, as well as his claim for bilateral hearing loss. The Board found that there was no evidence linking these conditions to service.

The Veteran's glaucoma is not related to his service or a head injury in service, and the Board finds that service connection for this condition cannot be granted.

The Board is reopening the claim for service connection for PTSD on the basis of new and material evidence. However, the claims for service connection for hypertension, glaucoma, and a foot disability are being remanded to the RO for further development.

The Board has determined that service connection is not warranted for any of the appellant's claimed disabilities, as none are on the presumptive list associated with herbicide exposure.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to the need for VA treatment records and the Veteran's testimony regarding his recent VA treatment.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for an initial compensable rating for hemorrhoids and service connection for glaucoma, directional vertigo (secondary to left perforated eardrum), left perforated eardrum, deviated septum, and TDIU due to service-connected disabilities. The appeal is not about service connection at all.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for PTSD, depression, glaucoma, lumbar degenerative joint disease, left shoulder disorder, neck disorder, and chest pain due to a sternum injury as chronic disabilities resulting from an undiagnosed illness. The claims were remanded on the theory of direct service connection.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's glaucoma is at least as likely as not related to military service and grants service connection for this condition.

The Board found that the Veteran's glaucoma is not related to his service and denied the claim.

The Veteran's bilateral eye injury, claimed as a result of VA outpatient treatment in 2001, was not caused by VA carelessness, negligence, or lack of proper skill. The Board found that the injury resulted from an unforeseen event.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's left eye glaucoma was not incurred in or aggravated by service, and thus denied his claim for service connection.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for a right eye disability other than glaucoma and bilateral glaucoma are being remanded to the RO for further development.

The Board found that the Veteran's left eye occlusion and bilateral glaucoma were not incurred in or aggravated by service, nor are they proximately due to his service-connected diabetes mellitus. The claim is denied.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for additional development regarding his claim of service connection for glaucoma.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities do not meet the criteria for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability. The claims of entitlement to service connection for bronchitis and gastroenteritis/duodenitis were previously denied, but no new and material evidence has been received to reopen these claims.

The Board denied service connection for hypertension and glaucoma, finding no evidence of in-service onset or association with service.

The Board finds that the Veteran's claimed disabilities are not related to his active military service, including exposure to herbicides. The preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that any current disability was incurred or aggravated by service.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including a VA eye examination to determine if any of the Veteran's eye disabilities are related to his service-connected diabetes mellitus and whether they were caused or aggravated by his diabetes.