Sleep apnea decisions — 2006

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for PTSD, pulmonary fibrosis, pulmonary emphysema, and sleep apnea due to asbestos exposure. The evidence did not support a finding of direct service connection for these conditions.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for GERD and sleep apnea, finding no evidence of these conditions in service or a link to his service-connected sinusitis. The veteran's service-connected sinusitis was rated at 10%.

The veteran's service connection for obstructive sleep apnea and vascular headaches and cervicogenic headaches, secondary to cervical degenerative joint disease of the spine, has been granted with a 10% evaluation.

The veteran's appeal has been withdrawn due to his agreement with the assigned ratings and his application for VA vocational rehabilitation benefits.

The VA denied the veteran's claim for a higher disability rating for his lumbosacral strain with post-traumatic lumbar spine arthritis, as the medical evidence did not support a higher evaluation based on intervertebral disc syndrome or other neurological findings.

The Board has determined that the veteran's fibromyositis, paravertebral lumbosacral muscles warrants a 20 percent disability rating.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an increased disability rating for his service-connected lumbosacral strain with degenerative disc disease, finding that the current evaluation of 40 percent adequately reflects the severity of his symptoms.

The veteran is seeking service connection for a low back disability on a secondary basis to his service-connected shell fragment wounds. The case has been remanded due to the need for further development, including obtaining an opinion from a physician regarding the relationship between the lumbosacral strain and the service-connected conditions.

The Board denied a rating in excess of 40 percent for the veteran's service-connected chronic lumbosacral strain, finding that the evidence did not meet the criteria for a higher rating under the applicable VA rating criteria.

The Board found no evidence of a back injury during service and concluded that the current lumbar disability is not related to military service.

The VA denied an increased evaluation for lumbosacral strain, finding that the veteran's condition did not meet criteria warranting a higher rating.

The Board has granted service connection for chronic sleep apnea, chronic irritable bowel syndrome, and chronic erectile dysfunction to include loss of use of a creative organ. The veteran's PTSD is rated at 50 percent from September 29, 2003, to January 5, 2005, and the Board has not found that an evaluation in excess of 50 percent is warranted for his PTSD as of January 6, 2005.

The veteran's lumbar spine disability and left lumbosacral radiculopathy were evaluated, but the RO denied an increased evaluation. The current evaluations are 40 percent for the lumbar spine disability and 20 percent for the radiculopathy.

The Board finds that an evaluation in excess of 20 percent for service-connected chronic lumbosacral strain with degenerative arthritis is not warranted under either the former or revised criteria.

The veteran's claims for increased ratings and service connection were denied. The RO found that the veteran did not meet the criteria for higher disability ratings or an earlier effective date.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an increased evaluation of his service-connected residuals of a low back injury, currently rated at 10 percent.

The VA determined that the veteran's lumbosacral strain with degenerative joint disease resulted in a disability rating of 20 percent, which is the current rating for this condition.

The veteran's lumbosacral strain with disk herniation at L4-5 and L5-S1 is rated at 60 percent, the maximum available under current rating criteria.

The Board found that the veteran's claim for a temporary total evaluation based on a service-connected disability requiring hospital treatment or a period of convalescence was timely filed. The case is now remanded to VBA for further adjudication on the merits.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for additional development and notification.