Skin conditions (dermatitis, eczema, psoriasis) decisions — 2012

The Veteran's skin condition was rated at 60 percent since November 27, 2009. The other issues were either denied or not addressed in the decision.

The Board has granted service connection for eczematous dermatitis with onychomycosis of the feet, bilateral hearing loss, and tinnitus. These actions constitute a complete grant of the benefits sought on appeal.

The Veteran's claims for higher initial ratings for PTSD, hemorrhoids, and tinea versicolor and seborrheic dermatitis have been granted. The effective dates are as follows: PTSD from February 2, 2001; hemorrhoids from August 29, 2000; and tinea versicolor and seborrheic dermatitis from December 26, 2006.

The Veteran's acne scars are found to be incurred in or aggravated by his military service, and the claim for service connection is granted.

The Board denied the appellant's claims of entitlement to service connection for various conditions, including emmetropia (eye disability), joint pain, urethral stricture, folliculitis, and aphagia. The appeal was not timely filed.

The Veteran's combined disability rating is 40%, which does not meet the minimum percentage requirement for special monthly pension based on need for regular aid and attendance or being housebound.

The Board found no evidence of skin problems during the Veteran's service or within one year after separation, and concluded that his current skin disorders are not related to his military service, including exposure to Agent Orange.

The Veteran's appeal for service connection for astigmatism has been withdrawn.,There is no evidence of any residuals from the in-service head trauma, other than headaches. The Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy.,The Veteran currently has dermatitis affecting less than 5% of his total body and exposed surface area with intermittent itchy areas on the forehead and temples. He is assigned an initial compensable rating for this condition.,Prostatic hypertrophy is currently asymptomatic, but the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of prostatic hypertrophy.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's claimed conditions are not service-connected, as there is no evidence of a nexus between his current disabilities and his military service.

The Veteran's left ear hearing loss is not shown to be productive of a pattern of hearing loss worse than Level II, and no exceptional pattern of hearing impairment was demonstrated.,Prior to April 1, 2010, the service-connected tinea versicolor was manifested by generalized itching and manifestations on the torso; however, it did not meet criteria for an evaluation in excess of 10 percent. Beginning on April 1, 2010, the Veteran's condition more nearly approximated a disability picture that more nearly approximated that of 20 to 40 percent involvement of the entire body surface.,Beginning on April 1, 2010, the service-connected tinea versicolor is shown to have been manifested by a disability picture that more nearly approximated that of 20 to 40 percent involvement of the entire body surface; no systemic drug therapy during a 12-month period is shown to be required.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining service treatment records and scheduling VA examinations to determine the nature and etiology of any current incontinence, skin disorder, low back disability, cervical spine disability, and right shoulder disability. The Veteran will be provided with a supplemental statement of the case if any benefits sought remain denied.

The Veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for a skin disability, claimed as facial rash, resulting from March 2006 prostatectomy performed at University Hospital is denied because the care was not provided by a facility over which the Secretary has direct jurisdiction.

The Veteran's lumbosacral spine disorder, including degenerative disc disease, was not incurred in or aggravated by service and is unrelated to active duty. The cervical spine disorder resolved without chronic residuals during service and is also unrelated to active duty. The skin disorder of the feet was not shown in service and is unrelated to active duty.,The Veteran's lumbosacral spine disorder (including degenerative disc disease), cervical spine disorder, and skin disorder of the feet were all determined to be not incurred or aggravated by service.

The Veteran's lumbar spine disability, residual scar of the right hand, allergic rhinitis, and seborrheic dermatitis were all rated at 10 percent. The left ankle disorder was not service-connected.

The Board has reopened the claim for service connection for a back disability and granted it. Bilateral hearing loss was not found to be related to service, while pseudofolliculitis barbae is considered new evidence of an existing condition.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for a chronic skin rash, including inguinal dermatitis and eczema hiemalis, was denied. The Board found no new and material evidence to reopen the claim.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities are as likely as not of such nature and severity as to prevent him from securing or following substantially gainful employment, warranting a TDIU.

The Veteran's appeal for a compensable rating for tinea pedis has been withdrawn. The Board finds that service connection is granted for an acquired psychiatric disorder, including generalized anxiety disorder, depression, stress, anxiety, panic attacks, social phobia, bipolar disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Service connection is also granted for insomnia, with the condition being secondary to service-connected peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities.

The Board denied reimbursement for unauthorized medical expenses as the services were not deemed necessary due to a prudent layperson's expectation that delay in seeking immediate medical attention would not have been hazardous.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection and increased disability ratings for various conditions, finding that there was no evidence to support these claims based on the current medical records and available evidence.