Ischemic heart disease Board decisions

The Veteran's claim for an effective date prior to August 31, 2010 for the award of service connection for coronary artery disease was denied. The Board found that no claim for this condition had been filed before the original grant of service connection.

The Board granted service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death due to ischemic heart disease, a covered herbicide disease. The effective date is set at May 1, 1996.

The Board has determined that the reduction in rating for ischemic heart disease from 30 percent to 10 percent, effective April 1, 2014, was proper. The appeal is denied. However, the Veteran's entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 10 percent for ischemic heart disease from April 1, 2014 is remanded due to a need for additional evidence and examination.

The Veteran's service connection claims for ischemic heart disease, diabetes mellitus, diabetic neuropathy of the bilateral upper and lower extremities, erectile dysfunction, and hypertension are all granted due to herbicide exposure during service. The Board found that the Veteran was exposed to herbicides in Thailand and has been diagnosed with these conditions.

The Board has determined that additional evidentiary development is necessary prior to the adjudication of the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for hypertension due to herbicide exposure during service.

The Veteran's current ratings for coronary artery disease, scar, status-post boil treatment, left forearm, and PTSD are not adequate due to worsening symptoms. New examinations with updated findings should be conducted.,The Veteran has a current diagnosis of hypertension but his service records do not document the disorder. A remand is required to obtain an addendum medical opinion regarding service connection for hypertension based on herbicide agent exposure.,The Veteran submitted a statement indicating that during service he had to walk through infested waters while in Vietnam and believes this caused his skin problems. A remand is necessary to provide the Veteran with an examination and to obtain an opinion addressing etiology of his claimed condition.,A claim for a TDIU is considered part of increased rating claims. Additional development has been requested with respect to the remanded PTSD, left arm scar, and heart disease claims which may generate evidence relevant to a TDIU. The matter is also remanded.,The Veteran has a current diagnosis of jungle rot in his bilateral feet. A VA examination is needed to determine the nature and etiology of this condition.

The Veteran's asthma was granted service connection as it is presumed to have existed prior to service and not aggravated by service. Other claims for various conditions were denied.

The Veteran's heart disability, bilateral pes planus, left knee disability, and right knee disability are all denied as not incurred or related to service. The claims for these conditions have been remanded for further development.

The Veteran's CAD was rated at 10 percent prior to January 29, 2014. A 100% rating is granted for the period from January 29, 2014 to April 29, 2014.,From April 29, 2014 to September 11, 2014, a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for CAD status post CABG is remanded.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to a lack of medical opinion on whether the Veteran's sleep apnea is aggravated by his service-connected disabilities. The VA needs to obtain records from Dr. Hanley and provide a supplemental medical opinion.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to inadequate medical opinions and need for updated VA treatment records. The Veteran seeks service connection for sleep apnea, either directly related to his military service or secondary to his service-connected CAD and/or hypertension.

The Board has remanded the claims for additional development and clarification of the Veteran's service connection and evaluation requests.,An effective date of February 27, 2001, is granted for a 40 percent rating for lumbar spine degenerative disc disease. Other issues remain pending.

The Veteran's heart condition was not caused or aggravated by VA care, resulting in denial of compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151.,The Veteran does not have a service-connected disability that renders him unemployable, leading to dismissal of his TDIU claim.

The Board has granted service connection for hypertension but has remanded the issue of service connection for heart disability, as no VA examiner has provided an opinion regarding whether the Veteran's heart disability is proximately due to or aggravated by his service-connected hypertension.

The Veteran withdrew his appeals for diabetes mellitus, type II, a skin disability claimed as skin condition of the back, and atrial fibrillation claimed as ischemic heart disease.

The Veteran's service-connected conditions, including major depressive disorder, degenerative joint disease of the lumbar spine, and coronary artery disease, have rendered him unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation. His claim for service connection for coronary artery disease is granted due to presumed exposure to herbicides in Thailand.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded due to the need for a new VA examination to assess his current coronary artery disease, including exercise testing if medically necessary.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for service connection and increased ratings due to new evidence of worsening conditions, including heart conditions, diabetes mellitus, and diabetic nephropathy. The claims are being returned for further examination and evaluation.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for a heart condition and multiple myeloma, finding that there is no current disability or evidence of a causal relationship to service. The claim for multiple myeloma was also not granted on a presumptive basis.

The Board has remanded all issues due to the failure of the AOJ to provide proper notice to the appellant's representative regarding a June 2016 rating decision. The CUE claim should be resolved prior to resolving the new and material evidence claim.