Skin conditions (dermatitis, eczema, psoriasis) Board decisions

The Board found that the Veteran's recurrent eczema/atopic dermatitis began during active service, but there is no evidence linking a current diagnosis of tinea pedis to any incident of service.

The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for PTSD, diabetes mellitus, type II with erectile dysfunction, bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, onychomycosis and psoriasis, and peripheral neuropathy of the upper and lower extremities was denied as a matter of law.

The Board denied service connection for a skin condition, specifically claimed as eczema, finding that the condition was not incurred in or aggravated by active military service.

The Board found that a 70 percent initial evaluation was warranted for the Veteran's service-connected PTSD due to occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas of his life.

The Board has reopened the claims for service connection for a gastrointestinal disorder with dyspepsia, seborrheic dermatitis claimed as skin rash, jungle rot, and chloracne, and degenerative joint disease of the lumbar spine. However, it has denied service connection for these conditions.

The Veteran's hypertension, sleep apnea, skin disorder (chloracne/sebaceous hyperplasia), right hip disorder and bilateral neuropathy of the feet were not related to his service or any service-connected disability.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an increased disability rating for tinea pedis, as the condition did not meet the criteria for a compensable evaluation.

The Veteran's claims to reopen service connection for bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, a right elbow disorder, a right shoulder disorder, PTSD, hepatitis C, a right eye disorder, an ulcer, a scar of the right shoulder, and tinea versicolor were denied as new and material evidence was not submitted.

The Board denied service connection for variously diagnosed skin disorders, finding no evidence of a nexus between the Veteran's current skin conditions and his military service.

The Board denied service connection for a skin disability involving the hands, groin, thighs, and shins as there was no evidence of chronicity or continuity of symptomatology during service or after discharge.

The appellant's claims of entitlement to service connection for pseudofolliculitis barbae, a low back disorder, and an increased rating for his left shoulder, left ankle, and right ankle disorders are being remanded for further development.

The Board denied service connection for the claimed disabilities, including as due to undiagnosed illness resulting from service in the Southwest Asia theater during the Gulf War.

The Veteran's seborrheic dermatitis was rated at 30 percent, and the Board found no basis for a higher rating.

The Board denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss, a skin disorder (claimed as chloracne), and moles on the back. The Veteran was also denied a compensable disability rating for varicose veins of the left leg.

The Board denied a rating in excess of 30 percent for neurodermatitis of the groin, as the evidence did not show ulceration or extensive exfoliation or crusting, with systemic or nervous manifestations, or exceptional repugnance.

The appeal is remanded for further development, including scheduling of VA examinations to address the etiology of the Veteran's claimed disabilities and their relationship to his service-connected diabetes mellitus.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for an initial compensable evaluation for eczema, residuals of stress fracture, right femoral neck and pubic ramus, scar residuals of cholecystectomy, service connection for sinusitis, and service connection for a right labial inclusion cyst.

The case is remanded for a detailed VA dermatology examination to assess the current severity of the veteran's pseudofolliculitis barbae.

The Board denied a rating in excess of 30 percent for pseudofolliculitis barbae, on an extra-schedular basis pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1), from August 30, 2002.

The Board found that the appellant's foot disability was not incurred in or aggravated by active service and arthritis may not be presumed to have been incurred therein.