Acquired psychiatric disorder decisions — 2003

The Board has ordered further development due to the need for additional evidence. The case is now remanded to the RO for the requested development.

The Board found that new and material evidence had been received to reopen the veteran's claim for service connection for a psychiatric disorder, which was previously denied in October 1993. The VA will now consider whether this condition is related to military service.

The Board denied the appellant's claims for service connection for residuals of a head contusion and an acquired psychiatric disorder, including PTSD. The evidence did not support current diagnoses or establish a link between any claimed conditions and service.

The Board has granted a 100 percent evaluation for the veteran's service-connected schizophrenic reaction, paranoid type, and dismissed his claim for TDIU due to service-connected disability as moot.

The Board has ordered further development in the veteran's case, including obtaining VA medical records and information from USASCRUR to verify alleged stressors. The appeal is currently remanded for this purpose.

The Board has denied the veteran's claim of service connection for schizophrenia, finding that there is no medical evidence linking his current condition to service or within one year of discharge.

The Board has granted service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include post-traumatic stress disorder, since the evidence shows that appellant's symptoms are related to his military service.

The Board has ordered further development due to incomplete records and the need for more specific details regarding stressors. The case will be returned to the RO for additional development.

The Board denied service connection for acne vulgaris, hidradenitis of the left axilla, and a psychiatric disorder. The nerve damage was not considered proximately due to a service-connected disability.,Service connection was not granted as there is no evidence of an in-service injury or disease that led to these conditions.

The veteran's claim for a total disability rating due to unemployability was granted, effective from December 14, 1994. The RO assigned a 100 percent evaluation for schizophrenia as of January 21, 1998.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining updated VA medical records and scheduling a VA psychiatric examination. The claim is also being considered in conjunction with the issue of individual unemployability.

The Board denied service connection for schizophrenia and dermatophytosis and benign growth of the skin, finding no evidence linking these conditions to service or military exposure.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to a failure to properly notify the appellant of his rights under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim of service connection for a psychiatric disorder due to new and material evidence submitted since the January 1978 denial. The claim is now pending on its merits.

The Board found that the veteran's schizophrenia, paranoid type originated in service and granted service connection.

The Board has found that new and material evidence has been submitted which is sufficient to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder, to include as secondary to the service-connected lumbosacral strain. The veteran's claims for increased rating for lumbosacral strain are also addressed.

The Board found no evidence of a chronic condition during service and denied the claims for sciatic nerve injury, bilateral leg and foot disabilities, and psychiatric disability.

The VA denied service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, including Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), finding that the veteran's current psychiatric condition is not related to his military service.

The Board has granted the veteran's claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, finding that new and material evidence had been submitted to reopen the claim.

The Board has determined that further development is needed and the case is being returned to the RO for consideration.