Peripheral neuropathy decisions — 2006

The veteran's claims for increased ratings and service connection were denied. The Board found that the evidence did not support a higher rating for his varicella pneumonia residuals or peroneal neuropathy, and there was no current diagnosis of PTSD.

The Board has remanded the case for a VA medical examination to determine if the veteran's peripheral neuropathy is causally related to his period of active service or any incident therein, including exposure to Agent Orange.

The veteran's claims for increased ratings for diabetes mellitus and peripheral neuropathy are being remanded due to the need for a VA examination.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have service connection for prostate cancer, erectile dysfunction, peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities, or a skin condition due to in-service exposure. The claim for hemorrhoids was previously denied and no new and material evidence has been received.

The Board has denied the appellant's claim for an increased rating for his left ankle disability, finding that he is currently in receipt of the maximum schedular rating of 40 percent.

The Board found that the veteran's diabetes mellitus and peripheral neuropathy are not related to his service-connected duodenal ulcer with hyperacidity, which he underwent in 1958 and 1963. Therefore, compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 is denied.

The veteran's adjustment disorder with depressed mood was found to be aggravated by his service-connected bilateral ulnar neuropathy, and he is granted service connection for this condition on a secondary basis.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for his right elbow contracture with ulnar neuropathy, finding that the current 20 percent rating adequately reflects the severity of his condition.

The veteran's claims for higher initial ratings for Type II Diabetes Mellitus, peripheral neuropathy of the arms and legs, and bilateral proliferative diabetic retinopathy were denied. The veteran was also denied service connection for a stroke secondary to his diabetes.

The veteran's appeal has been dismissed due to his death.

The veteran's service-connected disabilities were not continuously rated at 100% disabling for a period of ten years or more immediately preceding his death. Therefore, the criteria for entitlement to DIC benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1318 are not met.

The Board has determined that the veteran's peripheral neuropathy does not warrant a rating in excess of 10 percent for either lower extremity, as the evidence shows mild symptoms rather than moderate.

The Board found that the veteran's residuals of fasciotomy of the right leg with right common peroneal and right posterior tibial neuropathy do not warrant a rating in excess of 10 percent.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has not been submitted to reopen the appellant's claim for service connection for the cause of the veteran's death. The issue remains on the substantive merits.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for low back disability, neuropathy in the upper extremities, and cataracts with secondary membrane in the left eye. The evidence does not support a finding of direct service connection for these conditions.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for erectile dysfunction and peripheral neuropathy, as well as his claim for an increased evaluation for PTSD. The veteran's conditions were not found to be related to his active service or service-connected diabetes mellitus.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claims for service connection for lumbar degenerative disc and joint disease, degenerative changes of the cervical spine, and neuropathy of the right leg. The appeals are granted as the evidence supports a finding that these conditions are related to military service.

The Board found that the veteran did not have peripheral neuropathy or hypertension in service, and these conditions are not related to his diabetes. Therefore, he was denied service connection for both disorders.

The Board finds that the evidence does not demonstrate that the veteran is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation solely due to his service-connected disabilities, and therefore, entitlement to TDIU is denied.

The Board found no competent evidence linking the veteran's diagnosed conditions to his chemical exposure during service. The case is being remanded for further development of records from the VA medical center in Dallas, Texas.