Scars decisions — 2009

The appeal is remanded to the RO for further development and readjudication of the Veteran's claim.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for an initial compensable evaluation for eczema, residuals of stress fracture, right femoral neck and pubic ramus, scar residuals of cholecystectomy, service connection for sinusitis, and service connection for a right labial inclusion cyst.

The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date was denied as the November 1980 rating decision, which proposed to reduce his disability rating from 10 percent to 0 percent, became final and could not be used to establish a new date of claim.

The veteran's claims for service connection for headaches and an increased rating for the residuals of a nasal fracture were withdrawn, while his claim for an increased rating for scar residuals was granted at 50 percent.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for his post-operative residual scar of a left thoracotomy for excision of neurofibroma, as the evidence did not support an increase in severity.

The Board found that the evidence received since the January 1954 and January 1995 rating decisions is not new and material, and therefore denied reopening of the claims for service connection.

The Veteran's claim for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) was remanded to the RO for further development, including an examination to assess the functional impact of his service-connected disabilities and their relationship to dizziness, headaches, poor balance, and stuffy ears.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for a scar, associated with status post (s/p) bunionectomy s/p surgery with degenerative joint disease (DJD), right foot was submitted on December 21, 2005 and the effective date of this award is granted as of that date.

The case is being remanded for the RO or AMC to obtain missing treatment records from the Milwaukee VA Medical Center.

The Board denied an increased rating for the shrapnel wound scar on mandible with retained foreign body, but granted a separate noncompensable disability rating for neuralgia of the fifth cranial (trigeminal) nerve.

The appeal is remanded for an additional VA examination to determine the nature and extent of any disability associated with the service-connected right foot scar disorder and the etiology of the Veteran's right knee disorder.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for an increased rating for chronic conjunctivitis of the right eye and a higher initial rating for left eye corneal scarring with dystrophy.

The veteran's abdominal scars, residuals of a laparotomy and ventral hernia repairs, do not meet the criteria for an initial higher (compensable) rating.

The Veteran's bronchial asthma was granted a higher initial 30 percent rating prior to April 21, 2005, but the claim for an increased rating for his left scrotal sac scar remains pending.

The Board denied the Veteran's request to reopen previously denied claims for service connection for a psychiatric disorder, a gastrointestinal disorder, a genitourinary disorder, residuals of gunpowder burns of the eyes, a left eye scar, conjunctivitis, and bilateral pterygia.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for an earlier effective date for a 100 percent evaluation of Meniere's syndrome, special monthly compensation based on being housebound, and total disability rating for compensation purposes based on individual unemployability.

The Board denied an evaluation in excess of 40 percent for residuals of a gunshot wound to the right hip prior to May 16, 2008 and denied a rating in excess of 20 percent for residual scarring.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings and service connection were denied as the evidence did not support higher ratings or additional service-connected disabilities.

The Board denied service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II and denied initial compensable ratings for left hand and left iliac crest scars as well as residuals of a left hand injury.

The appeal is remanded to the RO for further development and readjudication of the claims.