Glaucoma Board decisions

The Board has determined that the veteran's claims for service connection for ocular hypertension and glaucoma, as well as residuals of a left fifth finger dislocation, are not well grounded. The evidence does not support a finding that these conditions began during his period of honorable service or are otherwise related to military service.

The Board found that the veteran's service-connected residuals of a laceration of the left eye with traumatic glaucoma and cataracts warranted an initial 10 percent rating, effective from the date of service connection.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for the award of service connection for neovascular rubeosis glaucoma and special monthly compensation, finding no legal basis for such a determination.

The Board has denied the veteran's claim for service connection for glaucoma as not well-grounded due to a lack of competent medical evidence linking the condition to his military service.

The veteran's claim for a permanent and total disability rating for pension purposes was denied as his disabilities do not meet the criteria set forth in VA regulations.

The Board found no evidence linking the veteran's current glaucoma to his service, and thus denied his claim for service connection.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an increased rating for his service-connected corneal scar, right eye with iridectomy, cataract and traumatic glaucoma, finding that the evidence did not support a higher rating.

The Board has determined that the claim for service connection for glaucoma is not well grounded, and thus denied.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for Grave's disease and glaucoma, finding that his claims are not well-grounded. The issue of service connection for Crouzon's craniofacial dysostosis is remanded due to insufficient evidence regarding its preexistence in service.

The Board denied an increased rating for glaucoma, finding that the veteran's hearing loss did not meet the criteria for a compensable rating. The issue of entitlement to an increased rating for glaucoma is remanded.

The Board found no evidence of glaucoma and denied the veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151.

The Board found that the appellant does not meet the criteria for special monthly pension based on need for regular aid and attendance of another person or housebound status due to her disabilities.

The veteran's disabilities, including a total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, degenerative joint disease of the lumbar spine, cervical spondylosis, degenerative arthritis of the knees, hemorrhoids, COPD, and glaucoma, meet the criteria for a combined rating of 70 percent. The veteran is therefore considered unemployable due to her disabilities.

The Board has determined that there is no current evidence of a heart disability, glaucoma of the left eye, or refractive error of the left eye. The veteran's claims for these conditions are therefore denied.

The Board has determined that the appellant does not meet the criteria for increased special monthly death pension benefits due to her need for aid and attendance of another person or being housebound, based on her disabilities.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claims for hearing loss, tinnitus, glaucoma and cataracts are not well grounded as there is no competent medical evidence linking these conditions to his period of active service or his service-connected cerebral concussion.

The veteran's claim for vocational rehabilitation benefits was denied as he had acquired stable employment that did not aggravate his service-connected disabilities.

The Board denied service connection for irritable bowel syndrome and cataracts and glaucoma, attributing the latter to nasopharyngeal irradiation in service. The claim for increased evaluation of myositis of the right shoulder is pending.

The VA surgery did not improve the appellant's vision and resulted in his bilateral blindness due to end-stage glaucoma with cataracts.

The Board has determined that the appellant's need for aid and attendance is established, granting her special monthly pension based on this need.