Scars decisions — 2023

The Veteran's cause of death was intracerebral hemorrhage and hypertension. The Board finds a VA medical opinion is necessary to determine if his service-connected conditions caused or contributed to his death.

The Board dismissed the appeal of the propriety of the reduction in rating for prostate cancer. The Veteran's claim for a 10 percent rating for painful lower abdominal scars was granted.

The Board has remanded the issues of service connection for colon cancer and its associated surgical scar, as well as the effective dates for these claims. The Veteran did not submit a formal or informal claim prior to March 24, 2015.

The Veteran was granted an effective date of July 24, 2012 for TDIU and DEA based on his service-connected disabilities.,His service-connected conditions rendered him permanently and totally disabled from that date.

The Board has granted an effective date of July 11, 2007 for the grant of a TDIU based on service-connected disabilities. The Veteran's conditions rendered her unemployable as of that date.

The Veteran's initial disability rating for a residual scar of the forehead is granted at 10 percent.

The Board has decided to remand the claims for increased ratings and service connection due to outdated medical examinations. The Veteran's left knee conditions, back disorder, right hip disorder, and left hip disorder are all under review.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings and service connection are remanded due to the need for additional examinations and opinions regarding her conditions.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities did not preclude him from securing or following a substantially gainful occupation prior to May 16, 2011. The Board denied entitlement to TDIU and SMC at the housebound rate due to lack of substantial evidence showing marginal employment.

The Board has decided to remand the Veteran's claims for service connection due to incomplete service treatment records and a need for further examination. The Veteran reported being struck in the face by a metal can of syrup during service, which may have caused his current facial injuries.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the submission of a VA Form 10182, which was not appropriate for his legacy system appeals. The AOJ must issue an SOC and allow the Veteran to file a substantive appeal if he wishes to continue his appeal under the legacy appeals system.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for hypertension has been resolved in full with a grant of benefits. The remaining issues have been remanded due to the need for additional evidence and medical opinions.

The Veteran's surgeries for eyelid issues did not result in additional disability due to carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, error in judgment or similar instance of fault on the part of VA. The Board denied compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 and TDIU.

The Board has dismissed all claims due to the Veteran's death before a decision could be made.

The Board has granted a single 10 percent disability rating for service-connected painful scars on the left hand and left thigh, effective from the date of the decision.

The Veteran's claims for a compensable rating for a residual hydrocelectomy scar under DC 7802 or a rating in excess of 10 percent under DC 7804 were denied. The Board found that the evidence did not support higher ratings based on the criteria provided.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings related to his right knee, left knee and left knee scar are being remanded due to the need for further evidence regarding the current severity of these conditions.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the Veteran's hepatitis disability. The Veteran is also seeking a compensable rating for his varicocele and varicocele surgical scar, which requires further examination.

The Veteran's service-connected bilateral retinal scars with left eye maculopathy and pseudophakia are currently rated at 30 percent since March 23, 2020. Prior to this date, the disability was not considered disabling enough for a higher rating.

The Veteran's appeals have been dismissed as the appellant has withdrawn his appeal in its entirety.