Peripheral neuropathy Board decisions

The RO granted service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the right and left upper extremities with a 10% rating effective September 1, 2004.,The RO also granted service connection for ischemic heart disease with a 30% rating effective February 19, 2004.

The Board found that the veteran's skin ulcerations, retinopathy, and peripheral neuropathy were not incurred in or aggravated by service, nor are they proximately due to exposure to ionizing radiation. The Board determined that these conditions are unrelated to his military service.

The veteran's initial ratings for diabetes mellitus and peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities have been granted, but not in excess of the assigned disability ratings.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for a disability of the right lower extremity, claimed as neuropathy, finding that it was not incurred in or aggravated by active service.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased evaluations for his service-connected disabilities, including residuals of a fractured head of the left radius (elbow), chronic left shoulder strain, DJD of the cervical spine C5, C6, C7, and peripheral neuropathy of the upper extremities. The appeal was not about service connection at all.

The veteran's claims for service connection for diabetes mellitus and peripheral neuropathy of the lower and upper extremities as secondary to his diabetes are denied. The Board found no evidence of herbicide exposure in Vietnam, and thus could not presume service connection based on Agent Orange exposure.

The veteran's service-connected disabilities do not meet the criteria for specially adapted housing or financial assistance in the purchase of an automobile or other conveyance and adaptive equipment.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete VA medical records and the need for an SOC on all issues.

The Board has determined that the veteran's current peroneal nerve neuropathy is caused or aggravated by his service-connected low back disorder, warranting service connection.

The veteran's claims for increased ratings for residuals of trenchfoot in both lower extremities and PTSD have been granted, with each receiving a 30 percent rating.

The Board has decided to remand the veteran's claims for additional development due to incomplete information and potential new evidence. The claims will be reviewed again with a focus on whether there is new and material evidence, the relationship between his current symptoms and service, and any necessary medical examinations.

The Board granted increased ratings for the veteran's back disability and peroneal neuropathy of the left lower extremity, effective from November 13, 2002.

The Board has remanded the case for further development due to incomplete records and additional consideration of the claims.

The Board has determined that additional development is needed to ensure full compliance with the VCAA and to provide a complete record for adjudication. The case will be returned to the RO for further action.

The veteran's claim for an evaluation in excess of 50 percent for PTSD was denied. The claim for service connection for peripheral neuropathy of both feet was also denied, as there is no evidence relating the current condition to service.

The veteran's claim for TDIU is being remanded due to the need for additional development, including a VA examination to assess his employability.

The veteran is seeking higher evaluations for diabetes mellitus with diabetic retinopathy, early cataracts, and peripheral neuropathy from specific time periods. The case has been remanded to allow for further development including a medical opinion.

The Board found that the veteran's peripheral neuropathy is not related to his service-connected diabetes mellitus, and thus denied the claim for secondary service connection.

The veteran's appeal of the issue regarding service connection for peripheral neuropathy due to nerve impingement, bilateral upper extremities has been withdrawn. The other issues remain under consideration.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded due to a scheduling issue, and the case will be handled by the RO nearest the veteran's new location in Arizona.