Ischemic heart disease Board decisions

The Board finds that the veteran now has essential hypertension, which is service-connected due to its onset during active duty. The heart disability claim was denied as not well grounded.

The veteran's claims for service connection for a heart disorder, including hypertension, and allergic rhinitis and sinusitis (claimed as headaches) are pending. The claim for new and material evidence for an acquired psychiatric disorder is also pending.,A higher evaluation of 60 percent has been granted for the lumbar myositis and discogenic disease of the lumbar spine effective from January 31, 2000. However, prior to that date, a maximum evaluation of 20 percent was denied.

The Board has determined that the veteran's service-connected coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, and diabetes contributed to his death from lung cancer.

The Board has granted service connection for PTSD and assigned a 10 percent rating for headaches.

The veteran's heart disease, including a myocardial infarction, was found to be aggravated by his service-connected PTSD.

The veteran's claims for service connection for heart condition, swollen feet, and lung disease are being remanded due to the need for additional development including a VA examination.

The veteran's service-connected ischemic heart disease is found to have contributed substantially or materially to his death. The appeal for DIC benefits under the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 1318 is dismissed as moot due to the grant of service connection.

The veteran's claim for restoration of a 100% disability rating for arteriosclerotic heart disease with hypertension is being remanded due to the need for further evidence and development.

The Board has remanded the case due to new evidence submitted by the veteran and additional development is required.

The veteran's combined service-connected disability rating is calculated as 94 percent, which rounds to 90 percent according to VA regulations. The Board denies the claim for a higher rating.

The VA has determined that your post-operative spiral dissection of the right coronary artery does not warrant an evaluation higher than 20 percent.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for residuals of a right shoulder injury and atherosclerotic heart disease with angina pectoris and essential hypertension, finding no evidence to support these claims.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for heart disease and anemia.

The veteran's service-connected disabilities have prevented him from engaging in substantially gainful employment since August 24, 1993. The effective date for the total rating for compensation purposes based on unemployability is set at August 24, 1993.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim for service connection for a heart condition and granted it, finding that new and material evidence was submitted to reopen the claim. The Board also found that the veteran's current heart problems are at least as likely as not related to his service.

The Board has granted a 100 percent rating for the veteran's arteriosclerotic heart disease, status post myocardial infarctions, triple bypass grafts, hypertension and angina.

The Board found no indication of fraud, misrepresentation or bad faith on the part of the appellant. The COWC waived the overpayment for a portion and reduced the remaining amount to $7815.

The Board found that the veteran's claimed coronary artery disease and mitral valve prolapse were not incurred or aggravated during active service, nor could they be presumed to have been incurred due to exposure to Agent Orange. The evidence did not support a finding of service connection.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for hypertension and ischemic heart disease, finding that the current ratings of 10 percent are appropriate based on the objective findings from examination and treatment.

The Board denied the reopening of the claim for service connection for a heart condition due to lack of new and material evidence. The appellant submitted medical records from 1976 to 1998, but none were considered significant enough to reopen the case.