Shoulder Board decisions

The Veteran's skin conditions, specifically post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation of the upper back and shoulders and folliculitis, are not service-connected as they are not related to his military service.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's reported in-service injury is not credible, and therefore, service connection for any cervical spine disorder, numbness and tingling of the lower extremities, or headaches cannot be established. The Board also found no evidence of a chronic disease manifesting within one year post-service.

The Veteran's initial disability rating for her right shoulder injury, post-surgery with orthopedic and nerve impairment, was granted at 30 percent. The Board found that the evidence did not support a higher rating based on current functional limitations.

The Board has reopened the Veteran's claim for service connection for degenerative changes and muscle strain of the left shoulder, finding that new evidence supports a causal relationship to service. The claim is granted.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including a new VA examination to assess the current severity of his right shoulder disability.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded for further development, including obtaining medical opinions regarding the etiology of his claimed shoulder and hip disorders. The claims are inextricably intertwined with his TDIU claim.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for a new hearing before the Board of Veterans' Appeals.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for further development, including obtaining VA treatment records and scheduling a VA examination. The claims of increased ratings for gunshot wounds to the left shoulder and elbow are also being considered.

The Board found that a left shoulder disorder was not incurred in service and is not related to service, thus denying the claim for service connection.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings for his low back and right shoulder disabilities were denied. The Board found that the evidence did not support a higher rating than the current assigned ratings.

The Veteran does not have a current disability involving either shoulder and has not at any time since the filing of this claim.

The Board has remanded the appeal due to a failure to schedule a travel board hearing at the RO, and the Veteran's request for such a hearing is pending.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to outstanding medical records and authorization forms.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including obtaining VA and private medical records, scheduling the Veteran for appropriate VA examinations to assess his service-connected disabilities, and readjudicating his claims.

The Veteran seeks service connection for a cervical spine disorder, which he attributes to his active duty service. The Board has determined that additional development is needed due to the lack of medical nexus opinions and VA treatment records.

The Board has decided to remand the case for additional development, including obtaining service treatment records and scheduling a VA examination.

The Veteran's service-connected degenerative osteoarthritis of the right shoulder has been evaluated as noncompensable since December 25, 2005. The VA examiner found no limitation of motion that would warrant a compensable rating.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims of service connection for left shoulder and bilateral knee disorders, finding that there was no evidence of a nexus between these conditions and his military service.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for a right ankle disorder and left eardrum disorder have been denied as there is no current evidence of these conditions. The claims for service connection for left shoulder, left knee, and right knee disorders are pending due to the need for further clarification from VA medical examinations.

The Veteran's claim for a higher rating for his left shoulder degenerative joint disease was denied since the evidence did not show that his range of motion, recurrent dislocation, or ankylosis met the criteria for a higher rating.