Sleep apnea Board decisions

The Board has determined that the Veteran's obstructive sleep apnea is related to his military service and grants service connection for this condition.

The Board found that the evidence does not support a finding that the Veteran's obstructive sleep apnea is related to his service or aggravated by his service-connected mood disorder, and therefore denied the claim.

The Veteran does not have a disorder of the lumbar spine, joint pain to include bilateral shoulders, or sleep apnea that was caused by his service.

The Board has decided to remand the case for additional development, including obtaining new medical opinions and records.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded due to the need for a new VA examination of her lumbosacral strain and because the issue of TDIU is inextricably intertwined with the rating claim.

The Veteran's appeal for a higher rating for allergic rhinitis with sinusitis was dismissed due to his withdrawal of the appeal.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities are sufficient to bring his combined rating to 80 percent, with at least one disability rated 40 percent or higher. These service-connected disabilities preclude the Veteran from maintaining gainful employment.

The Veteran's claims for PTSD and left shoulder disability were denied due to lack of new and material evidence. The remaining issues, including service connection for various conditions, are currently in a pending status.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been received to reopen the Veteran's claim for service connection for a bilateral eye disability. The case is remanded for further development, including obtaining an opinion on the etiology of all eye disabilities present during the period of the claim.

The Veteran's claim for a higher rating for his service-connected asthma, evaluated in conjunction with obstructive sleep apnea, was denied as the condition does not meet the criteria for a separate evaluation under Diagnostic Code 6602.

The Board denied service connection for sleep apnea, finding that it is not related to the Veteran's active service and is not secondary to his service-connected PTSD with major depressive disorder.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded for a VA examination to determine the etiology of his obstructive sleep apnea, which may be related to service or other factors. The case will be returned to the Board after further development.

The Veteran seeks service connection for hypertension and sleep apnea, to include as a result of presumed exposure to herbicides during service in Vietnam. The Board finds that additional development is necessary due to the nature of his claims.

The Board has remanded the case due to a request for a videoconference hearing, and the appeal is not ready for appellate review.

The Board has remanded the case for further development due to a need for clarification regarding whether the Veteran's sleep apnea pre-existed service and if so, whether it was aggravated by military service.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for sleep apnea, to include as secondary to her service-connected depression, is being remanded due to the need for additional development and consideration of evidence not previously considered by the VA examiner.

The Veteran's lumbosacral strain and radiculopathy of the lower extremities were rated, with a 40 percent rating for lumbosacral strain effective July 16, 2014.

The Veteran's service-connected lumbosacral strain and right lower extremity radiculopathy have been rated at the highest available rating of 20 percent. The Board finds that a higher rating is not warranted as there is no evidence of ankylosis or incapacitating episodes.

The Board has remanded the case for further development due to missing service treatment records, particularly from the Veteran's duty stations in South Carolina and New York. The claims will be reconsidered after obtaining these records.

The Veteran's service-connected lumbosacral spine discogenic disease and peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities are considered, but his TDIU claim is being remanded for further review due to conflicting opinions regarding his employability.