Acquired psychiatric disorder decisions — 2010

The Veteran's service-connected psychiatric disability has been rated at a 50 percent since August 2004, and the Board finds that this rating is appropriate for the entire period of time covered by the appeal.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for a back disorder, bilateral knee disorder, and depression were denied as there is no competent medical evidence linking these conditions to his active service.

The Board has dismissed the appeal as the appellant withdrew his Substantive Appeal.

The Board has reopened the Veteran's claim of service connection for coronary heart disease with a myocardial infarction and granted it. The issues of service connection for depression and an eye disorder are remanded.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's current psychiatric disorder, including social phobia and dysthymic disorder, is related to his active service. The claim for sleep apnea secondary to a psychiatric disorder will be remanded for further development.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient medical evidence and the need for a VA examination. The Veteran's claim of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is pending.

The Board found that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of an acquired psychiatric disorder or PTSD related to service, and thus denied his claims for service connection.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, a cervical spine disorder, and a left shoulder disorder. The evidence did not support a finding that these conditions were related to his military service.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including a VA psychiatric examination to determine the nature and etiology of any current psychiatric or psychological pathology. The Veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD will be reconsidered in light of the new evidence.

The Board found that the appellant's preexisting psychiatric disorder did not increase in severity during his active duty for training and thus, denied service connection.

The Veteran does not have a diagnosed psychiatric disability, including PTSD, as the result of disease or injury during his active service.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including obtaining updated VA clinical records and scheduling a VA neurologic and psychiatric examination to address whether the service-connected headaches caused or contributed to the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder.

The Veteran's claims for COPD and an acquired psychiatric disorder were denied. The claim for hepatitis was reopened, but the residuals of spinal meningitis claim remains unresolved.

The Board has remanded the case to the RO for scheduling a personal hearing before a member of the Board at the Veteran's local regional office.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development to determine the etiology of any acquired psychiatric pathology, including PTSD and other diagnoses such as bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, and schizophrenia. The case will be reconsidered after this development.

The Board found that the Veteran did not have a diagnosed psychiatric disorder, including PTSD, and thus denied his claim for service connection.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claim of service connection for PTSD, finding that there is no evidence to support the claimed in-service stressor and thus failing to establish a link between current symptoms and an in-service event.

The Veteran's claim for special monthly pension based on the need for aid and attendance or being housebound is remanded due to incomplete development of records, including a new VA examination.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for headaches, a skin disorder (Actinic Keratosis), and PTSD have been denied. The Board found that the medical evidence is entirely unfavorable to a finding that exposure to herbicides caused any of these conditions.

The Veteran's claim for service connection is being remanded due to the inadequacy of a previous VA examination. The case will be readjudicated based on new evidence and opinions.