Ischemic heart disease decisions — 2015

The Veteran was found unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation due to service-connected disabilities as of June 3, 2009.

The Veteran's service-connected coronary artery disease status post myocardial infarction with coronary artery bypass graft was found not to warrant a rating in excess of 30 percent prior to October 1, 2010 and not warrant a rating in excess of 10 percent from October 1, 2010.

The Board found that the Veteran did not have exposure to herbicides and thus could not establish presumptive service connection for his claimed conditions. The medical evidence showed no current diagnoses of diabetes, heart condition, or prostate cancer, and there was no competent credible evidence linking these conditions to service.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for further development, including a new VA examination and review of outstanding treatment records. The AOJ will also address whether the May 2000 rating decision was clearly and unmistakably erroneous.

The Board has determined that the Veteran was exposed to herbicides in service, and therefore his claims for diabetes mellitus II and coronary artery disease are granted as they are presumed related to such exposure.

The Board found that the Veteran's heart disorder was not incurred in or aggravated by service, and did not find a relationship to his service-connected diabetes mellitus. The claim for secondary service connection was denied.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for ischemic heart disease and granted service connection for atrial fibrillation. The Veteran does not have diagnosed ischemic heart disease, while his atrial fibrillation is found to be caused by his diabetes mellitus.

The Board found that the cause of death, lung cancer, was not related to service and thus denied the claim for service connection for the cause of death.

The Veteran's last sickness expenses, totaling over $10,000, were borne by the appellant. The Board found that these expenses exceeded the amount of awarded but unpaid benefits ($6,911) and granted the appellant this amount as reimbursement.

The Veteran's initial claim for a higher rating for his coronary artery disease (CAD) has been granted, with a 60% disability rating effective from the date of the decision. The Veteran also meets the criteria for a TDIU and is granted this benefit.

The Veteran's death was caused by ischemic heart disease, which is presumed to have been incurred during active service due to herbicide exposure in Thailand.

The Veteran's arteriosclerotic heart disease has been rated at 30 percent since August 31, 2010. The Board found that the disability resulted in dyspnea, fatigue, and dizziness at a workload of between 5 and 7 METs, warranting this rating.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for a bilateral foot disability and heart disability were denied. The appeal was also denied as the highest possible rating of 70% for PTSD has been granted.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining a VA examination to determine if the Veteran has coronary artery disease related to his active duty service and presumed exposure to herbicides. The issue of whether atherosclerosis is secondary to herbicide exposure will also be addressed.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities render him unable to secure or follow substantially gainful employment, and the Board finds that TDIU is warranted.

The Veteran's claims on appeal are being remanded due to the need for additional development, including VA examinations and requests for Social Security Administration records.

The Board denied service connection for visual field defect, right knee disability, diabetes mellitus, residuals of a stroke, and heart condition as the evidence did not support an in-service injury or disease that caused these conditions.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities, when considered together, render him unemployable. The case is REMANDED for a comprehensive examination to determine the combined effect of his service-connected disabilities on his ability to secure and maintain substantially gainful employment.

The Board has determined that a VA examination and opinion are needed to determine the etiology of the Veteran's heart condition, as well as whether his current foot disorder is related to service. The claim for service connection for a heart disorder is being remanded.

The Board has determined that additional development is needed to properly adjudicate the Veteran's claims, including obtaining medical records and scheduling examinations.