Shoulder Board decisions

The Veteran's left shoulder disability has been rated at 20 percent since the grant of service connection, but does not meet or more nearly approximate the criteria for a higher rating under any applicable diagnostic code.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims of service connection for right shoulder, cervical spine, and lumbar spine disabilities due to lack of evidence linking these conditions to his military service.

The Board has determined that the Veteran does not have a current disability for any of his claimed conditions, and there is no evidence to support service connection for these disorders.

The Veteran's claims for a higher initial rating for his right shoulder disability and for derivative TDIU have been remanded due to the need for further development, including additional medical examinations.

The Veteran's right shoulder disability, which is currently rated as 20 percent disabling under DC 5201, has been found to warrant a higher rating of 30 percent due to limitation of motion to midway between the side and shoulder level. The Veteran does not meet the criteria for a higher rating of 40 percent.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's current right shoulder disorder is causally related to his military service, and thus grants service connection for this condition.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded due to the need for a new VA examination to determine the current severity of his right shoulder disability.

The Board found that the Veteran's right shoulder disorder was not present in service or until many years thereafter and is not related to service or to an incident of service origin, including to his service-connected disabilities.

The Board has reopened the claims for service connection for fatigue, joint pain with muscle aches (other than disability of the bilateral ankles), and sleep apnea due to undiagnosed illness. The evidence received since the September 1997 rating decision raises a reasonable probability of substantiating these claims.

The Veteran's claims for glaucoma, left shoulder bursitis, and diabetes mellitus were denied as there is no evidence of these conditions during service or within the presumptive period.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for additional development due to incomplete medical records and a need for clarifying opinions regarding his left shoulder and left knee disorders.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to his request for a videoconference hearing regarding the right shoulder disability.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claims of service connection for bilateral hearing loss, left knee disorder, and left shoulder disorder. The evidence does not show a current disability that is related to active duty.

The Board found no evidence to support the Veteran's claims for bilateral shoulder disability and PTSD, concluding that any current disabilities are not related to his military service.

The Board found that the Veteran's right shoulder disorder did not manifest during service and is not attributable to service, thus denying his claim for service connection.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for HPV II, and initial ratings for her left shoulder disability, bilateral pes planus with plantar fasciitis, postoperative residuals of bunionectomy on the first metatarsal of each foot were denied. The appeal was reopened due to new evidence provided.

The Board has remanded the claims for service connection for right shoulder, right knee and bilateral foot disabilities to allow for additional development.

The Veteran's right shoulder degenerative joint disease is manifested by infrequent recurrent dislocations of the scapulohumeral joint; range of motion is restricted to shoulder level or above, warranting a 20 percent disability rating.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for a rating in excess of 50 percent for his left shoulder disability and granted entitlement to TDIU. However, due to the Veteran's death prior to the issuance of this decision, the Board had no jurisdiction to adjudicate these claims.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for additional development, including obtaining medical opinions and treatment records.