Sarcoidosis Board decisions

The veteran's motion for revision of a decision based on CUE was dismissed without prejudice due to non-compliance with the pleading requirements.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for an initial compensable rating for sarcoidosis and service connection for residuals of a kidney stone, finding that the evidence did not support higher evaluations based on current symptomatology.

The veteran's claim for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities is being remanded for additional development, including a VA examination to evaluate the impact of his sarcoidosis on his employability.

The Board found that the veteran's sarcoidosis did not warrant a rating in excess of 30 percent prior to September 5, 2000. The effective date for TDIU was also denied as there was no increase in disability severity prior to September 5, 2000.

The Board denied the veteran's claim to reopen his service connection for sarcoidosis, finding that new and material evidence had not been presented. The RO previously denied the claim in August 1994 on the basis that there was no evidence showing causation or manifestation of sarcoidosis within one year of separation from active duty.

The Board has decided that additional evidence is needed to determine if the veteran's sarcoidosis is related to service, and therefore remanded the case for further development.

The veteran's claims for increased evaluations of service-connected hypertension, sarcoidosis, and vascular headaches are being remanded due to the failure to obtain necessary medical records and provide proper VCAA notification.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the failure of the RO to issue a Statement of the Case (SOC) addressing his claims for increased ratings and effective dates. The veteran must be provided with an SOC, including a VA Form 9 for filing a substantive appeal.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for a personal hearing before a Veterans Law Judge at the RO. The initial disability ratings for arthralgia disease of the lumbar spine and sarcoidosis are still pending.

The Board denied an increased rating for pulmonary sarcoidosis prior to December 15, 1998. However, it granted a separate rating of 10 percent for multiple joint arthralgia associated with the veteran's service-connected pulmonary sarcoidosis.

The veteran's claims for service connection for diabetes mellitus, a skin condition, and sarcoid arthritis are being remanded due to incomplete verification of his exposure to Agent Orange during active duty.

The veteran's claims for service connection are being remanded to obtain additional medical opinions and verify his Gulf War service.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including obtaining verification of the veteran's service from October 1999 to February 2000 and scheduling a VA urological examination.

The Board denied service connection for sarcoidosis for the purpose of accrued benefits due to lack of supporting clinical evidence from a physician or other medical professional.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for sarcoidosis, finding that there was no evidence to support a link between the condition and his military service.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining medical opinions regarding the veteran's claimed conditions and evaluating her service-connected disability.

The Board granted service connection for pulmonary sarcoidosis effective December 19, 1991. The veteran's claim was filed after his discharge from service.

The Board has granted service connection for depression, memory loss due to Gulf War service, and numbness of the right side and leg due to Gulf War service. The effective dates are set at November 18, 1993.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been presented to reopen the veteran's claims for service connection for a skin disorder including seborrheic dermatitis, and sarcoidosis of the lungs, skin, and epididymis. The case is now remanded for further development.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals has ordered the case remanded to the RO for additional development and adjudication due to incomplete records and lack of a VA examination.