Hypertension (high blood pressure) decisions — 2007

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for hypertension, depression/depressive disorder, and PTSD due to a lack of medical evidence linking these conditions to his military service.

The Board has determined that the veteran's erectile dysfunction is causally related to service-connected diabetes mellitus, type 2. The remaining issues on appeal are addressed in the REMAND portion of the decision.

The veteran's initial ratings for diabetes mellitus, type II, with hypertension and erectile dysfunction have been denied. The VA has not assigned a separate rating for hypertension or erectile dysfunction.

The veteran's service-connected disabilities do not render him unable to care for his daily needs without requiring the aid and attendance of another person, nor do they substantially confine him to his home or immediate premises.

The Board found that the cause of death (ARDS) was not caused by or related to service-connected conditions, and thus denied the claim for service connection for the cause of death.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have peripheral neuropathy and therefore, service connection for this condition is denied.

The Board found that the veteran's death was not caused by a service-connected disability, and thus denied the claim for service connection for the cause of his death.

The Board has found that hypertension may be presumed to have been incurred in service, and thus the veteran's claim for service connection is granted.

The veteran is seeking service connection for hypertension as secondary to his service-connected PTSD with anxiety and depression. The Board has determined that additional development, including a VA examination, is needed before the claim can be decided.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not currently have a confirmed diagnosis of PTSD, and his chronic back disability was not incurred or aggravated during service. Hypertension is also not presumed to be related to service. The veteran's arthritis claim cannot be granted as there is no evidence linking it to service.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for hypertension, high cholesterol, and a chest condition. The claim for an initial, compensable rating for tinea corporis was also denied as it did not meet the criteria for a compensable evaluation.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for hypertension and coronary artery disease, finding that there was no evidence of a nexus between these conditions and his active duty service or any service-connected disability.

The Board has ordered the case to be remanded for compliance with VA's duty to notify and assist, including providing notice responsive to the particulars of the appellant's claim. The appeal is about service connection for the cause of the veteran's death.

The veteran's disabilities do not meet the criteria for special monthly pension based on need for regular aid and attendance or being housebound.

The veteran's claims for service connection were denied. The Board found that hypertension, presbyopia, glaucoma, and atrial fibrillation did not manifest during or as a result of his military service.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for a hearing at the RO level. The issues of service connection for hypertension, bilateral shoulder disability, and left inguinal hernia remain pending.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim of service connection for psychiatric disability, claimed as PTSD. The decision is to grant this claim.

The veteran's non-service-connected disabilities do not meet the criteria for special monthly pension based on need for aid and attendance or housebound status.

The Board has determined that the VA's duties to notify and assist have not been fulfilled for this issue, and thus the case is being returned to the RO/AMC for further development.

The Board denied the veteran's request for an earlier effective date of August 25, 2002 for a separate evaluation of hypertension. The decision stated that the change in regulations was not liberalizing enough to allow for such an early effective date.