PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) decisions — 2010

The Veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD is being remanded due to the need for a VA examination and review of his claimed stressors.

The Veteran's service-connected PTSD is found to have contributed substantially or materially to his death from acute myocardial infarction. Service connection for the cause of death is granted.

The Veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses incurred at Florida Hospital - Ormond Memorial on February 28, 2008 was denied as the treatment did not meet the statutory definition of 'emergency treatment'. The Board found that the emergency room visit was not a medical emergency and thus VA could not provide payment.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including obtaining an opinion on whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder other than PTSD. The Veteran's claims for PTSD will also be considered.

The Veteran's PTSD was found to have caused occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity, but not the more severe level of impairment required for a higher rating. The claim for an initial rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD is denied.

The Veteran's TDIU claim is granted with an effective date of December 6, 2004.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including obtaining medical records and an examination to determine the nature and probable etiology of any acquired psychiatric disorder other than PTSD.

The Veteran's service-connected PTSD resulted in reduced reliability and productivity, with difficulty in establishing effective work and social relationships.

The Board has remanded the case back to the RO for further proceedings consistent with a Joint Motion for Remand. The Veteran is scheduled for a videoconference hearing before a Veterans Law Judge at the RO.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for further development, including scheduling a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including seeking verification of alleged stressors and obtaining updated VA treatment records. The psychiatric disability claim will be reconsidered to include other diagnosed conditions, and the hearing loss rating will consider whether valid audiometry scores can be obtained.

The Board found no credible supporting evidence of the claimed in-service stressors, and thus denied service connection for PTSD and MDD.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD is being remanded due to the need for clarification regarding whether an in-service sexual assault occurred.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's service-connected disabilities did not meet the schedular requirements for TDIU until February 18, 1998. The effective date of TDIU is therefore set at this date.

The Board has determined that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of PTSD and his psychiatric disorders are not related to service. Therefore, service connection for these conditions is denied.

The Board has remanded the case for further development and consideration of all evidence, including a determination on the credibility of the Veteran's claimed stressor for PTSD.

The Veteran's PTSD has worsened, and he is now rated at 70% disabling. Given his other service-connected conditions, the VA has determined that he meets the criteria for a TDIU effective December 27, 2006.

The Veteran's PTSD was granted service connection based on in-service stressors. The skin disability claim is remanded for further development.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded for additional development, including obtaining VA treatment records and scheduling a VA examination to assess the severity of his service-connected PTSD.

The Board found that the debt was validly created due to the Veteran's incarceration for a felony. The overpayment of VA compensation benefits is denied as there is no indication of fraud, misrepresentation, or bad faith on the part of the appellant.