Knee Board decisions

The Board has determined that the claim on appeal must be remanded to ensure compliance with due process considerations, including providing a supplemental statement of the case and considering whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the service connection claims for cervical spine, lumbar spine, and knee disabilities.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claims for increased evaluations are denied as there is no evidence showing that his service-connected conditions warrant a rating higher than 20 percent for each condition.

The Board has granted increased evaluations of 50 percent for post-operative residuals of osteochondritis of the left and right knees, effective from the date of the decision.

The veteran's appeal was dismissed due to his death during the pendency of the appeal.

The veteran's appeal for higher initial evaluations on several knee and finger conditions was dismissed due to the failure to file a timely Substantive Appeal.

The Board has determined that the veteran's service-connected right knee disability does not warrant a rating in excess of the current 30 percent evaluation.

The Board has granted increased evaluations for the veteran's service-connected traumatic arthritis of the right knee and degenerative joint disease of the lumbar spine, but denied an increase in evaluation for his service-connected traumatic arthritis of the left knee. The RO needs to implement these changes.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims of entitlement to service connection for a back disorder, arthritis, a bilateral knee condition, and anxiety with major depression. The evidence submitted since the February 1997 decision is not new and material.

The veteran's claim for payment of or reimbursement for medical expenses incurred during his hospitalization at the DePaul Medical Center in Norfolk, Virginia, from May 27 to June 3, 1991, was denied as he did not meet the criteria for reimbursement under VA regulations.

The Board has granted service connection for several conditions, including right eye injury and sinusitis. However, the claims for a right knee disorder, tinnitus, and lacerations of the left cheek were denied as not related to service.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an initial disability evaluation in excess of 20 percent for his right knee disability, finding that the evidence did not support a rating higher than 20 percent.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased evaluation of venous varicosities, service connection for hypertension and right knee/leg disability as secondary to his service-connected venous varicosities, and service connection for a low back disorder. The claim for reopening a direct-service connection claim for a back disorder was also denied.

The veteran's claim for special monthly pension based on the need for aid and attendance or at the housebound rate is denied as his disabilities do not meet the criteria for such benefits.

The veteran's claims for service connection for arthritis of the right knee, both shoulders, right hip, and thoracic spine are being remanded due to the need for additional development of medical evidence.

The VA has denied the veteran's claim for a compensable evaluation for his service-connected left knee disability, as there is no evidence of subluxation or lateral instability since his discharge from active duty in 1988.

The Board dismissed the appeal because a timely substantive appeal was not filed within the required time frame regarding the proper evaluation for right knee chondromalacia from October 19, 1990.

The Board has restored the veteran's prior 20 percent rating for his service-connected postoperative residuals of right knee injury, as the RO improperly reduced this rating based on medical evidence that did not demonstrate sustained improvement.

The veteran withdrew his appeal on the issue of entitlement to an increased rating for left knee disability.

The appellant claims that he developed a below knee amputation of the right lower extremity as a result of VA medical treatment in September 1997. The Board finds that additional investigation is needed to determine if there was negligence or fault on the part of VA in providing care, and whether any resulting disability was caused by such care.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to changes in the law and incomplete medical records.