PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) Board decisions

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been presented to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD. The preponderance of the medical evidence of record is against the finding that the veteran has a current diagnosis of PTSD.

The VA determined that the veteran's PTSD does not warrant an evaluation greater than 50 percent, as his symptoms do not meet the criteria for a higher rating.

The Board has found new and material evidence to reopen the claim of service connection for PTSD. Further development is needed before deciding the merits.

The veteran's appeal has been dismissed due to his death.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD, finding that there was no credible supporting evidence of a verified stressor and thus not meeting the criteria for service connection.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining medical records and examining the appellant to determine if his psychiatric disorders are related to service.

The Board has ordered a remand for further development, including obtaining a VA medical opinion regarding the veteran's PTSD and its contribution to his death.

The veteran's left foot disorder and PTSD were not found to be related to service. The VA determined that the veteran has limited motion in his middle, ring, and little fingers of his left hand due to ankylosis, which resulted in a 20% rating.

The veteran's PTSD, sleep disturbance, and left wrist pain are all found to be related to his military service. The appeal was reopened based on new evidence.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, carpal tunnel syndrome, and an acquired psychiatric disorder (including post-traumatic stress disorder) due to lack of evidence demonstrating a nexus between these conditions and her military service.

The VA determined that the veteran's PTSD warrants a 30 percent evaluation, effective from December 30, 1998.

The Board granted increased ratings for the service-connected residuals of a gunshot wound to the neck and PTSD, with the former rated at 40 percent and the latter at 30 percent.

The veteran's claims for earlier effective dates for the service connection of PTSD, hysterectomy residuals, and lumbar strain with degenerative disc disease, L5-S1 have all been denied. The RO has granted a 40 percent evaluation for the lumbar condition as of January 17, 2003.

The veteran's PTSD was rated at 30 percent from November 14, 1996 to June 30, 2002 and increased to 50 percent from July 1, 2002 to January 31, 2004. The rating for PTSD was then increased to 70 percent as of February 1, 2004. For the left knee disability, a 10 percent evaluation has been maintained since July 9, 2002.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for a psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, and a bilateral knee disorder due to lack of evidence linking these conditions to his military service.

The Board found that the veteran does not have post-traumatic stress disorder related to service and denied his claim.

The Board has found that the appellant's claimed stressors are reasonably supported by evidence, and a VA psychiatric examination is needed to determine if any of these stressors are sufficient to support a diagnosis of PTSD. The claim for service connection will be granted based on the direct link between the verified in-service stressor(s) and the veteran's symptoms.

The veteran's PTSD was not incurred or aggravated in service, and the claim for service connection is denied.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for service connection for PTSD, finding that there was no competent medical evidence linking his current diagnosis to any incident of military service.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for hepatitis C and whether a document received by facsimile on August 10, 2002, was a valid notice of disagreement to the July 23, 2002, rating decision. The effective date issue is not addressed as it pertains to an earlier effective date for a TDIU.