PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) decisions — 2019

The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate reasoning in its previous decision, specifically failing to address all of the Veteran's reported military sexual trauma (MST) incidents. The claim is now being reviewed again with a new opinion from an appropriate VA psychiatrist or psychologist.

The Veteran's claim for PTSD is being remanded due to the need for additional development, including a VA examination.

The Veteran's appeal regarding an increased rating for PTSD is denied. The case of service connection for bad allergic reactions due to asbestos exposure or in-service allergic rhinitis diagnosis is remanded.

The Board denied service connection for left and right knee disabilities, as well as PTSD. The Veteran's current diagnoses of these conditions were not supported by the evidence presented.

The Board has reopened the claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder to include PTSD and depression due to new evidence. However, it is denied as there is no current diagnosis of a mental health disorder.

The Board denied an earlier effective date for PTSD service connection due to the Veteran not filing a timely appeal, despite his claim being filed in September 2006 and he was notified of the April 2007 rating decision. The Board found that the Veteran missed the deadline due to depression.

The Veteran's PTSD with multi-infarct dementia has resulted in significant occupational and social impairment, warranting a 70 percent rating for the entire appeal period.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and an acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD, finding that there is no current diagnosis of these conditions and insufficient evidence to establish a link between them and his military service.

The Board has dismissed the appeals due to the Veteran's death.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings and a total rating based on individual unemployability were denied. The claim for an increased rating for posttraumatic stress disorder was granted effective December 18, 2017.

The Veteran's claim for PTSD was reopened due to new and material evidence. The case is remanded for a VA examination to determine the nature and extent of any psychiatric disability, including whether the Veteran has PTSD.

The Veteran's lung cancer, PTSD, and residual scars are service-connected. However, the Board finds that he does not meet the criteria for a special home adaptation grant due to lack of an inhalation injury.

The Veteran's claim for an extension of his delimiting date was granted because he had a mental disability (PTSD and depression) that prevented him from pursuing education until he successfully completed a treatment program in November 2013, which is within one year of the end of his eligibility period.

The Veteran's claims for GERD, Migraine Headaches, and an acquired psychiatric disability to include PTSD due to MST are being remanded for additional development of her medical records and for a new VA examination.

The Veteran's PTSD is rated at 70% and granted, while the service connection for neuropathy of the left lower extremity remains pending. The Veteran also received a TDIU rating.

The Board has remanded several issues for additional development, including service connection claims and rating determinations. The Veteran's claims are not yet resolved.

The Board has remanded the claims of service connection for sleep apnea, an acquired psychiatric disability (including PTSD and anxiety disorder), bilateral shoulder condition, and bilateral knee condition due to insufficient evidence.

The Veteran's PTSD is currently rated at 30 percent, and the appeal for a higher rating has been denied.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's current diagnosis of PTSD is related to his in-service sexual assault, and thus service connection for PTSD is granted.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for hypertension, PTSD, and sleep apnea as secondary to his service-connected knee disabilities. The evidence did not support the Veteran's contention that his service-connected knee disabilities caused or aggravated these conditions.