PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) decisions — 2001

The veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD was denied due to lack of verified stressors. The claims for increased evaluations for the left and right knee disabilities were also denied.

The Board denied the appellant's claims for various conditions, including PTSD, hypertension, and residuals of a head injury. The claim for service connection for a bilateral knee condition was not reopened due to lack of new and material evidence.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals has determined that the veteran does not currently have a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and therefore, service connection for PTSD is denied.

The Board denied service connection for PTSD as there was no credible evidence of the occurrence of a stressor related to active duty, and the veteran did not engage in combat with the enemy.

The veteran's appeal regarding the March 6, 1995 rating decision that did not assign 'permanency' to his total disability rating for PTSD and related conditions was denied. The claim for an effective date prior to April 30, 1997 for recognition of permanence in the total disability evaluation was also denied.

The Board has determined that the veteran's post-traumatic stress disorder and residuals of a left foot injury are service-connected based on direct evidence, with no presumption or secondary connection involved.

The veteran's lumbar spine disability was increased to a 50 percent rating, effective from the date of original grant. The veteran's PTSD and traumatic amputation were not granted higher ratings.

The Board has determined that the veteran's PTSD warrants a 50 percent rating, reflecting considerable impairment in occupational and social functioning.

The veteran's PTSD results in reduced reliability and productivity, but does not meet the criteria for a higher rating.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD is granted based on new and material evidence. The RO will schedule a VA examination to determine if the verified stressor events are of sufficient quality to support a grant of service connection.

The Board has remanded the case to further proceedings due to new evidence submitted by the veteran's representative and his application for total disability based on individual unemployability (TDIU).

The veteran is found to be permanently and totally disabled due to his psychiatric conditions, which preclude him from securing and following a substantially gainful occupation.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals has denied the veteran's claim for an increased rating for his service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The Board denied the veteran's claims for an increased rating for PTSD and TDIU due to service-connected disabilities, finding that her PTSD did not meet the criteria for a higher evaluation. The Board also found that she was not unemployable due to her service-connected disability.

The Board has granted service connection for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) based on new and material evidence submitted by the veteran, which included his experiences in Germany during military service.

The veteran's claim for a higher rating for his service-connected PTSD was granted, with the effective date being March 27, 1998.

The veteran's PTSD was rated at 30 percent from February 13, 1996 to September 22, 1997.,From September 23, 1997, the veteran's PTSD was rated at 50 percent.

The Board has granted a 100% disability evaluation for post-traumatic stress disorder effective from December 10, 1993. The veteran's claim was received on April 13, 1994.

The veteran's PTSD is productive of occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks. The Board has granted a 30 percent evaluation for PTSD, effective from the date of the original grant of service connection.

The Board has determined that the veteran's failure to report her spouse's income led to an overpayment of VA pension benefits. The Board found that the appellant was at fault in creating the overpayment and concluded that recovery would not be against equity and good conscience.