Shoulder decisions — 2009

The Board remands the issue of entitlement to service connection for left shoulder disability for further development, including obtaining the Veteran's complete Official Military Personnel File.

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

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for degenerative changes of the cervical spine, with right upper extremity radiculopathy and right shoulder biceps tendonitis as they were not caused by VA hospital care, medical or surgical treatment, or examination.

The appeal was remanded to schedule the veteran for a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge at the RO.

The veteran's claims for increased ratings and service connection were partially granted, with some conditions receiving higher initial ratings than initially assigned.

The Board finds that the veteran's current disabilities of the back, right shoulder, and hip are related to in-service manifestations.

The Veteran's postoperative acromioclavicular separation of the left shoulder with degenerative changes is not manifested by impairment of the humerus, and his left arm exhibits forward flexion to 104 degrees and abduction to 89 degrees with no objective evidence of additional functional limitation on repetitive use.

The Board denied service connection for bilateral hip disability, low back disability, cervical spine disability, bilateral hand disability, and shoulder disability as residuals of cold injury sustained from cold weather exposure in Korea.

The Veteran's right shoulder, knee, and GERD conditions do not meet the criteria for higher initial disability ratings. Service connection was denied for a right foot disorder and chest pain.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings, finding that the evidence did not support higher ratings for her service-connected disabilities.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for melanoma of the left shoulder, basal cell carcinoma of the neck and facial region, mass on the right adrenal gland, and enlarged prostate.

The appeal is remanded to the RO for further development and consideration of the veteran's claims.

The appeal is remanded for a VA examination to determine the extent and etiology of any residuals of the Veteran's left shoulder injury.

The Veteran's right shoulder disability warranted a rating of 20 percent prior to February 9, 2004, and no higher from that date. The claims for service connection for neck and upper back disabilities were denied.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for prostatitis and a right arm disability were denied, as there was no evidence of current conditions. The claim for an initial rating in excess of 20 percent for degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine, and other related issues, is being remanded for further development.

The Board denied service connection for the veteran's right shoulder disability as there was no competent evidence relating it to his service or a service-connected condition. The Board also found that the veteran's left shoulder disability warranted a 30 percent rating.

The veteran was granted service connection for carpal tunnel syndrome of the left wrist, and denied an increased evaluation in excess of 10 percent for left shoulder strain. The claim for an increased evaluation for right carpal tunnel syndrome was not decided.

The Board denied the Veteran's applications to reopen claims for service connection for a lumbar spine disability, varicose veins of both lower extremities, right shoulder disability, and cervical spine disability.

The veteran's claims for increased ratings for his service-connected left shoulder, depression, and bilateral hip disabilities are being remanded for further development.

The Board denied service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disease, left shoulder disability, hypertension, and low back disability as the preponderance of evidence was against a finding that these conditions were incurred in or aggravated by active duty. The claim for an increased rating for bilateral hearing loss was not addressed.