Sinusitis decisions — 2018

The Veteran's claim for service connection has been reopened, and he is granted a 10 percent rating for allergic rhinitis. The Board finds that additional development is needed to address his claims of upper respiratory conditions (including sinusitis) and pulmonary condition (asthma).

The Board has determined that the VA examinations and opinions are inadequate to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's thoracic spine disability and allergic rhinitis or chronic sinusitis, and therefore remands these issues for further development.

The Board has granted service connection for a sinus condition, including sinus barotrauma. The issue of dental trauma is remanded as the VA did not send the claim to VHA as instructed in the January 2014 remand.

The Veteran is granted service connection for chronic sinusitis, as it was incurred during active service and has persisted since then.

The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate development of records and examination reports. The Veteran's claims for service connection are related back to his military service, but further evidence is needed.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for service connection and increased ratings due to insufficient evidence, including a lack of VA examinations. The TDIU claim is also being remanded.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for sinusitis, finding that there was no clear and convincing evidence of a pre-existing condition and insufficient medical evidence linking current symptoms to active duty.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for service connection due to insufficient medical opinions regarding the relationship between his current sinusitis and aneurysm disabilities and his military service.

The Veteran's lumbar spine disability is rated at 40 percent, and his sinusitis is rated at 30 percent. These ratings are granted.

The Board denied service connection for a right-hand injury claimed as numbness in fingers and chronic right maxillary sinusitis. The Veteran's claim for total disability based on individual unemployability (TDIU) was also denied.

The Board has decided to remand the claims for chronic sinusitis and PTSD due to the need for further medical examination.

The Veteran's claims of service connection for allergic rhinosinusitis and bilateral flat feet have been granted. The Board found new and material evidence to reopen the claims, with a favorable opinion linking the conditions to service.

The Veteran's claims for service connection are being remanded due to the submission of new evidence and requests for a personal hearing.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's inguinal hernia, bilateral sensorineural hearing loss of the left ear, and tinnitus are service-connected. However, sinusitis is not considered service-connected.

The Veteran's sinusitis is rated at 30 percent, effective from October 15, 2010 to March 17, 2013. The Board found that the Veteran had more than six non-incapacitating episodes per year of sinusitis characterized by headaches, pain, and purulent discharge or crusting.

The Board has denied service connection for sinusitis, left knee osteoarthritis (to include as secondary to right knee disability), sleep apnea, and an acquired psychiatric disorder (to include depression). The case is remanded for further development.

The Board has reopened the claims for service connection for pain and numbness in right leg and foot, including as secondary to service-connected lumbar spine disability; sinusitis. The issues of service connection for these conditions are remanded due to new evidence received since the January 2009 rating decision.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings of his bilateral knee disabilities and maxillary sinusitis with rhinitis are remanded due to the lack of recent VA examinations.

The Veteran's claims for otitis media, tinnitus, and skin disability are granted. The claim for low back disability is denied.

The Board has remanded the claims for service connection for sinusitis and alopecia areata due to the need for further evidentiary development. The TDIU claim is also remanded as it may be supported by evidence from the other two claims.