Knee decisions — 2008

The veteran's red hemorrhagic patch of the right soft palate, left knee disability, and ankle disability are not service-connected as they are congenital conditions or do not have a relationship to military service.

The Board found that the veteran's bilateral knee disability is not due to disease or injury incurred in service, nor is it proximately due to a service-connected condition.

The Board has determined that the veteran's left knee disability, including as secondary to a service-connected right knee condition, was not incurred in or aggravated by service and is not proximately due to, the result of, or aggravated by a service-connected condition.

The VA denied all claims for higher initial ratings for arthritis of the right and left knees, as well as lateral instability of the left knee. The evidence did not support a finding that any condition warranted an increased rating under applicable diagnostic codes.

The VA examiner found that the veteran's current right knee and low back/hip disorders are not related to his service-connected shell fragment wound of the left thigh. The Board therefore denied these claims.

The veteran's claims for increased evaluations of his left knee and low back conditions have been denied. The Board found that the evidence did not support a disability evaluation in excess of 30 percent for the left knee condition.

The Board has decided to remand the case for additional development, including obtaining relevant service treatment records and arranging for a VA examination.

The Board granted an initial noncompensable rating for the right knee disability prior to December 5, 2006 and a compensable (10%) rating thereafter. The veteran's condition was found to be due to service connection.

The Board has determined that the veteran's left knee disability existed prior to service and was not aggravated by service. The Board also found no evidence of arthritis in service or related to service, thus denying service connection for a left knee disability.

The Board dismissed the appeal as there was no substantive appeal filed in response to the statement of the case.

The veteran's right knee disability was rated at 20 percent prior to September 13, 2005. He is now entitled to a higher rating of 60 percent effective January 1, 2008, and an extraschedular rating for his disability.

The veteran's claim for an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent disabling for service-connected left knee injury with traumatic arthritis is denied. The disability does not meet the criteria for a higher rating based on limitation of motion or other diagnostic codes.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to missing service treatment records and other evidence.

The Board has determined that the veteran's current bilateral knee disorder is not related to his active service and has denied his claim for service connection.

The Board has granted service connection for sleep apnea and remanded the other issues due to incomplete development.

The Board found that the veteran's right knee disability is not related to service and denied his claim for service connection.

The VA denied an increased rating for the veteran's service-connected right knee injury with degenerative arthritis, as his disability does not meet or approximate criteria warranting a higher rating.

The Board found that the veteran's right knee disability warrants a 10 percent rating based on degenerative changes, but denied a compensable rating for the healed fracture of the right zygomatic arch and orbital rim. The veteran is entitled to a separate 10 percent rating for his right knee condition.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, and residuals of left leg and knee injury are denied as there is no evidence showing a nexus between these conditions and his military service.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for a skin disorder, shrapnel wounds to his arms and knees, and hearing loss. The evidence does not support these claims as they are not related to service.