Peripheral neuropathy Board decisions

The Board finds that the veteran's peripheral neuropathy is proximately due to or the result of treatment for his service-connected Hodgkin's disease.

The veteran's low back disability is currently rated at 40 percent, effective January 30, 2003. The RO has also granted a separate 10 percent rating for peripheral neuropathy of the right lower extremity associated with his lumbar spine condition.

The veteran's claim for service connection for various conditions due to exposure to ionizing radiation is being remanded for further development.

The veteran's claim for TDIU is being remanded due to the need for notification and additional development, including extraschedular consideration.

The Board denied service connection for peripheral neuropathy as secondary to diabetes mellitus, type II, and chloracne due to lack of persuasive medical evidence of the current claimed disabilities.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim for service connection of arthritis, but denied his claim for peripheral neuropathy as there is no evidence linking it to service or exposure to herbicide agents.

The veteran's claim is being remanded for another VA examination to determine the current nature and severity of his service-connected residuals of right medial malleolus fracture, as well as obtaining additional medical records.

The Board has determined that the appellant's claims for increased evaluations for various service-connected disabilities have been denied. The appeals are based on direct service connection and no presumption or secondary service connection is applicable.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for additional development, including a VA examination and consideration of all pertinent evidence.

The veteran does not have a diagnosed condition of peripheral neuropathy and the evidence does not support service connection based on direct or presumptive exposure to herbicides.

The Board has remanded the case for further development due to new evidence submitted by the veteran.

The veteran's claims for earlier effective dates for service connection and special monthly compensation were denied as the earliest date of claim was January 14, 1993.

The Board determined that the veteran's vocational limitations due to his service-connected schizophrenia, combined with multiple medical disorders and lack of formal education since 1975, make it infeasible for him to become gainfully employed.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for peripheral neuropathy and PTSD, finding no new and material evidence to reopen the claim for peripheral neuropathy. The Board also found that there was insufficient evidence to grant an increased evaluation for PTSD.

The Board has denied the veteran's attempt to reopen his claim for service connection for residuals of a gunshot wound to the left hand. The new evidence submitted does not directly address whether the injury was due to willful misconduct, and thus does not provide sufficient material to reopen the claim.

The veteran is granted a certificate of eligibility for financial assistance in acquiring specially adapted housing due to service-connected disabilities. The issue of whether there is new and material evidence to reopen the hearing loss claim has been remanded. Special monthly compensation based on aid and attendance remains denied.

The Board has granted a 60 percent rating for the veteran's L2-L3 fracture, which is the highest schedular rating available based on limitation of motion.

The veteran is seeking service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities, which he claims is secondary to his service-connected diabetes mellitus. The Board has decided that additional development is needed before a final decision can be made.

The veteran's claims for increased ratings, special monthly compensation, and reopening his low back disability claim were denied. The RO found that the evidence did not meet the criteria for higher ratings or new and material evidence.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for additional development, including obtaining service medical records and scheduling a neurological examination.