Acquired psychiatric disorder decisions — 2005

The Board has found that new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the claim of service connection for periodontal disease, which was previously denied in March 1997. The case is now remanded for further development.

The Board denied the veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for psychiatric disability, including PTSD, finding that there was no evidence of a diagnosed condition and no credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor actually occurred.

The veteran's PTSD results in significant occupational and social impairment, warranting a 70 percent evaluation.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for a video conference hearing before a Veterans Law Judge at the RO in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development of the record, including obtaining medical records and providing VA examinations to determine the nature and etiology of any current psychiatric disability, bilateral hearing loss or tinnitus.

The veteran seeks service connection for a psychiatric disorder, including dysthymia, depression, and anxiety. The Board has remanded the case due to the need for further development of evidence.

The VA denied the appellant's claim for service connection due to a lack of qualifying active military, air or naval service. The appellant did not have any such service.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been received to reopen the veteran's claims for service connection for a psychiatric disorder and right hip disorder. The case is being remanded for further development, including obtaining updated VA treatment records and scheduling the veteran for a VA examination.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, including PTSD, and for residuals of a gunshot wound to the back and/or neck. The evidence did not support these claims.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete service medical records and a need for further development.

The Board has remanded the case for further development and to ensure compliance with all due process requirements, including representation.

The Board found that the August 1984 rating decision did not contain clear and unmistakable error, and denied reopening of the claim for service connection for a psychiatric disorder. The July 1979 rating decision is final as it was not appealed. The veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for generalized anxiety disorder and an increased evaluation were also denied.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including obtaining verification of a claimed stressor and psychiatric records.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the claim of service connection for a chronic acquired psychiatric disorder, which was previously denied in 1980. The veteran's claim is now considered on its merits.

The veteran's claim for Service Disabled Veterans Insurance (RH) under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1922(a) is being remanded due to the lack of relevant documents in the claims folder and the need for VCAA compliance.

The Board denied service connection for a neuropsychiatric disorder and degenerative joint disease with chronic pain syndrome, finding that the veteran's conditions are not related to active service or exposure to carbon tetrachloride.

The Board has remanded the case for further development due to incomplete compliance with VCAA and failure of the veteran to provide requested medical records.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim for service connection of an acquired psychiatric disability due to new and material evidence, but did not address whether service connection should be granted on the merits.

The veteran is not shown to have an acquired psychiatric disorder that is proximately due to or the result of service-connected disability.

The veteran's claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, which is secondary to his service-connected residuals of retinal detachment of the left eye, has been remanded due to procedural errors and the need for a clarifying medical opinion.