Skin conditions (dermatitis, eczema, psoriasis) decisions — 2008

The Board denied the veteran's petitions to reopen claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, but restored a 30 percent rating for atopic dermatitis from September 1, 2006, to September 29, 2006. The reduction of the rating was ultimately upheld as of September 30, 2006.

The veteran is unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation due to his service-connected disabilities, which are currently assigned a combined rating of 90 percent.

The Board denied service connection for chloracne as there is no persuasive evidence suggesting the veteran has chloracne that either originated in service or is otherwise causally related to his military service, including exposure to herbicides such as Agent Orange.

The veteran withdrew the appeal before the Board promulgated a decision.

The case must be remanded for additional development, including a VA examination and RO consideration of all applicable criteria.

The veteran's skin disability, tinea pedis of bilateral feet and onychomycosis of bilateral hands and feet, does not warrant a rating in excess of 30 percent.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection of frostbite, syphilis, rheumatoid arthritis, lumbar and cervical spine disabilities, tinea pedis, and tinea cruris as there is no competent evidence to support a finding that these conditions are related to his military service.

The Board denied the claims for service connection for Raynaud's syndrome, an increased rating for Sjogren's syndrome, and a total disability rating based on individual unemployability.

The veteran's claims for service connection for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and an increased evaluation for atopic dermatitis were remanded for additional development, including obtaining a new VA examination.

The Board determined that new and material evidence had been received to reopen the chloracne claim, but denied service connection for a skin disorder characterized as chloracne. The tinnitus claim was remanded.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for a chronic skin disability, finding no evidence linking his current condition to military service.

The veteran's service connection for urticaria and dry eye syndrome was granted, along with increased ratings for his psychiatric disorder (adjustment disorder) to 30 percent. Other claims were remanded.

The veteran's claim for a disability rating in excess of 30 percent for acne vulgaris was denied as the evidence did not support an increase to a higher rating.

The veteran's perioral dermatitis was not aggravated during active service, but acne rosacea with telangiectatic component is considered to have been incurred in active service.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for a respiratory disability, sleep disability, right foot disability, and sinus disability. The claim for an initial compensable rating for eczema was remanded.

The Board denied service connection for a bilateral visual disorder, tinea pedis, erectile dysfunction, peripheral neuropathy of the upper and lower extremities, hypertension, and special monthly compensation based on loss of use of a creative organ. However, it granted service connection for tinea pedis secondary to service-connected tinea pubis and erectile dysfunction secondary to service-connected diabetes mellitus type II.

The veteran's claim for service connection for a skin disorder was reopened, and she is granted a 70 percent rating for major depressive disorder.

The veteran's claims for service connection for migraine headaches and pseudofolliculitis barbae were denied as there was no evidence of chronic conditions in service or post-service. The increased rating claims for the inguinal hernia, right fifth metacarpal fracture, and left ulna fracture were also denied due to a lack of evidence showing worsening of these conditions.

The Board denied the veteran's appeal for an earlier effective date and service connection for chloracne, as there was no clear and unmistakable error in previous decisions.

The veteran withdrew his appeal for all issues, and the Board does not have jurisdiction to decide these benefits.