Migraines & headaches decisions — 2004

The veteran's service-connected chronic serous otitis media of the left ear with perforated tympanic membrane, hearing loss, and headaches have not been found to warrant a higher initial rating.

The veteran's claims for service connection are being remanded due to incomplete records and need for further examination. The issues include depression, a skin condition (tinea versicolor), migraine headaches, and PTSD related to sexual assault.

The Board has determined that the veteran's headaches were not incurred or aggravated by military service.

The Board has determined that the veteran's right eye injury is service-connected, but his head injuries are not. The veteran was treated for both conditions during service and continues to experience symptoms related to these issues.

The veteran's claims for service connection were denied, and the RO found no evidence linking his conditions to service or herbicide exposure.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claimed conditions, including bilateral defective hearing, a chronic left knee disorder, constant chest pain, and head trauma residuals, were not incurred or aggravated by active military service.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for headaches and speech disability as secondary to his service-connected bruxism, finding that the effective date of the grant of service connection for bruxism was July 20, 1998.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for increased evaluations for his service-connected disabilities, finding that none of them meet the criteria for a higher evaluation.

The Board denied the claims for service connection for memory loss and angioedema of the lower lip, as well as the initial evaluations in excess of 10 percent for left knee reconstruction and sinus disability with headaches. The appellant's claim for service connection was reopened on new evidence.

The Board found that the veteran did not file a timely substantive appeal with respect to a September 1995 rating decision, and therefore denied the appeal.

The veteran's service-connected episodic tension-type headaches have not been shown to meet the criteria for a higher disability rating.

The Board has remanded the veteran's claims for service connection due to insufficient medical evidence and a need for further examination.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have any chronic disabilities of the right leg, knee, middle finger, nose, wrist, shoulder, or great toe that are service-connected. The back disability is also denied.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for chronic headaches, a disorder characterized by cramps in the arms and legs, and bronchopulmonary disease. The appeals were decided on the merits of the evidence presented.

The Board dismissed the veteran's appeals as to evaluations for prolapse of the rectum with rectocele and removal of the gallbladder, and for service connection for foot disorders, prolapse of the uterus, sinusitis, migraine headaches, and bilateral shin splints.

The Board found that the veteran's degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine was not incurred during service and denied his claim. The Board also found no evidence to support a finding that the veteran's current head injury residuals were incurred in service, thus denying this claim as well.

The Board has granted an increased rating of 30 percent for the veteran's service-connected migraine headaches, effective May 11, 2003.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for a psychiatric disorder and whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen his claim for entitlement to service connection for headaches.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for additional vocational rehabilitation benefits under Chapter 31 of Title 38 of the United States Code, finding that she was rehabilitated and did not meet the criteria for reentrance into a rehabilitation program.

The Board has determined that the veteran's combined rating of 80% for service-connected disabilities is not sufficient to warrant a total disability evaluation based on individual unemployability.