Ischemic heart disease Board decisions

The Board denied the veteran's claim for special monthly compensation (SMC) on account of the need for aid and attendance or by reason of being housebound, finding that his service-connected disabilities did not render him permanently bedridden or unable to care for himself without regular assistance.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence and a need for further examination. The veteran's claim of entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for his service-connected PTSD is pending.

The Board has granted service connection for the cause of the veteran's death, but determined that an effective date prior to February 15, 2000 is not warranted.

The Board has determined that the veteran's hypertension and coronary artery disease are not proximately due to or the result of his service-connected anxiety and depression disorders.

The veteran's claim for service connection for coronary artery disease with congestive heart failure as secondary to service-connected rheumatic mitral stenosis has been granted, and he is now receiving a noncompensable evaluation for the condition.

The Board found that the veteran's service-connected PTSD did not cause or aggravate his non-service-connected coronary artery disease, and thus denied secondary service connection.

The Board found that the cause of death, arteriosclerotic heart disease with carcinomatosis, was not attributable to service and thus denied service connection for the cause of death.

The Board found that the veteran's residuals of rheumatic fever do not warrant a compensable evaluation as they are asymptomatic and his current heart issues, such as coronary artery disease, are unrelated to his service-connected condition.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for lung and heart conditions, both claimed as due to asbestos exposure during military service. The other issues were not addressed or are considered not relevant.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claims for service connection for heart disability and PTSD, but additional development is needed before de novo review can occur.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an effective date earlier than April 2, 2002 for a 100 percent rating for arteriosclerotic heart disease as the earliest ascertainable date of increase in disability was April 2, 2002.

The Board denied service connection for skin rash, cardiovascular disability (including hypertension, coronary artery disease, and congestive heart failure), and PTSD. The veteran's current diagnoses of these conditions were not linked to his military service.

The veteran's appeal is about his current disability rating for coronary artery disease, which is currently rated at 10 percent. The Board has ordered a remand to obtain updated medical evidence and determine the appropriate disability rating.

The veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of a cold injury, including arthritis and numbness in the lower extremities, a back disorder, and a heart disorder is being remanded due to scheduling an RO hearing.

The veteran's appeal has been withdrawn prior to the Board issuing a decision.

The Board has determined that the veteran's heart disorder was not incurred in or aggravated by active service and denied his claim for service connection.

The veteran's service-connected atherosclerotic coronary artery disease with hypertension and nephritis was granted at 60 percent effective June 3, 2002. The evaluation was increased to 100 percent effective August 14, 2003 for the period from June 3, 2002 until August 14, 2003.

The veteran seeks service connection for renal cell carcinoma and heart disease. The Board has determined that additional development is needed, including VA examinations to determine the nature and etiology of these conditions.

The Board has denied the veteran's claim for service connection for coronary artery disease, finding that there is no competent medical evidence linking any current heart disability to military service or claimed asbestos exposure.

The Board has determined that the appellant is in need of aid and attendance due to her physical and mental incapacity, which requires care or assistance on a regular basis to protect herself from hazards and dangers incident to her daily environment. Aid and attendance benefits are therefore granted.