Scars Board decisions

The Board has granted a 10 percent rating for the veteran's scars of the left tibia, which is the maximum schedular rating available under current regulations.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for further development, including VA examinations to assess the severity of his PTSD and other service-connected conditions. The case will be returned to the Board for readjudication.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for dental trauma, prostate cancer, and scars, all claimed as due to exposure to ionizing radiation. The right leg disorder claim was not addressed in this decision.

The Board has ordered further development due to the need for a line of duty determination and an examination to determine if the veteran's head injury is service-connected.

The veteran's service-connected right middle and ring finger disabilities are rated at 10% each, resulting in a combined rating of 20%. The VA determined that these conditions do not meet the criteria for TDIU due to their impact on his employment.

The veteran's claim for a compensable rating for service-connected old scarring, right hemithorax, secondary to pneumonia was denied by the RO.

The Board found that the veteran does not have a current disability related to an in-service injury, and thus denied his claim for service connection for vision loss and scar.

The VA has determined that the veteran's appendectomy scar does not meet the criteria for a compensable evaluation.

The Board has determined that the veteran is entitled to service connection for corneal scarring and loss of visual acuity in his right eye, but not for any left eye disability.

The Board has granted an initial rating of 10 percent for the service-connected residuals of a failed herniorrhaphy with inferior vena cava injury, effective from August 30, 2002.

The veteran's left ankle sprain residuals and postoperative right tibia skin graft scar were evaluated, with the left ankle receiving a 20% rating since May 10, 2004.

The veteran's claims for increased evaluations of his shell fragment wound residuals and scar residuals were denied by the Board. The service-connected conditions are currently rated at their maximum allowable ratings.

The veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. Section 1151 was denied as there is no evidence of negligence or fault on the part of VA in providing medical care, and thus his claimed conditions are not service-connected.

The veteran's claims for increased ratings for his service-connected loss of masticatory surface and donor site scars about the right iliac crest are being remanded due to inadequate VCAA notice and the need for additional VA treatment records and a dental examination.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for psychiatric, gastric, and cardiac disorders. The evidence does not establish a current diagnosis of any of these conditions or show their relationship to service.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for hypertension and PTSD, as well as his increased evaluations for traumatic arthritis, a third degree burn scar of the left ankle, and a scar of the right knee. The evidence received since the October 1961 rating decision was found to be cumulative or immaterial.

The Board denied all claims for increased ratings, finding that the veteran's conditions did not meet the criteria for higher disability evaluations under VA rating criteria.

The VA determined that the veteran's residual scar from an excision of a lump below his left clavicle does not meet the criteria for a compensable rating under the applicable VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities.

The Board has determined that there is no current evidence of a scar of the right shoulder and finds that service connection for this condition cannot be granted.

The Board has determined that the veteran's service-connected right fifth metatarsal disability warrants a 10 percent evaluation, and his surgical scar over the same area also warrants a 10 percent evaluation. The current evaluations are considered appropriate based on the evidence of record.