Sleep apnea Board decisions

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings for his service-connected lumbosacral spine, right knee, and left knee disabilities were denied. The Board found that the evidence did not meet the criteria for a higher rating under the applicable diagnostic codes.

The VA determined that the appellant's spondylolisthesis, spinal stenosis and degenerative disc disease lumbosacral spine warrants a 20 percent rating from August 17, 2007 until July 2, 2008.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for tinnitus and increased ratings for ligamentous lumbosacral strain were denied. The Board found that the evidence did not support a finding of current tinnitus or a link between any current condition and service.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities meet the percentage rating standards for TDIU and his claim is granted. The effective date of this decision is June 20, 2006.

The Veteran is seeking service connection for lumbosacral strain as secondary to her service-connected left patellofemoral syndrome. The Board has determined that further development of the clinical evidence, including VA outpatient records and physical therapy records, is necessary before a decision can be made.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's heart disease with hypertension, sleep apnea, and chest masses, status post mastectomy are not related to his military service.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for various conditions have been denied as there is no evidence of a nexus between her current disabilities and active military service.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities do not prevent him from obtaining and maintaining substantially gainful employment.

The Board denied service connection for sleep apnea and an acquired psychiatric disability, finding no evidence of onset or aggravation during active duty or ACDUTRA. Service connection was also denied for hypertension due to lack of a diagnosis.

The Veteran's lumbosacral traumatic arthritis with herniated nucleus pulposus was rated at 20 percent from December 13, 1984 to June 11, 1991 and at 60 percent since June 12, 1991. The appeal is denied as the Veteran does not meet the criteria for a higher rating under the applicable VA rating schedule.

The cause of the Veteran's death, metastatic liposarcoma, was not related to his service and therefore, service connection for the cause of death is denied.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings and TDIU were denied as his service-connected conditions did not meet the criteria for higher ratings or entitlement to a TDIU.

The Veteran's lumbosacral strain and bilateral tinnitus are granted as service-connected, while his bowel disorder, plantar warts, moles, and right foot disability claims are denied.

The Veteran's GERD is related to medication used for his service-connected back disability, and thus service connection is granted.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities do not preclude him from substantially gainful employment, consistent with his education and occupational experience.

The Board has granted increased disability ratings for the Veteran's service-connected lumbar and cervical spine disabilities, with a separate rating assigned for demonstrable deformity of the lumbar vertebral column.

The Veteran's DDD of the lumbosacral spine is currently rated at 20 percent, and his radiculopathy and neuropathy of the left lower extremity are rated at 10 percent. The Board has determined that a higher rating is warranted for both conditions.

The Board has reopened the claim for service connection for a back disability due to new and material evidence submitted since the March 1998 rating decision.,However, the Veteran's PTSD is not productive of more than occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining medical records and scheduling a videoconference hearing.

The Board found that the July 12, 1999 rating decision was not clearly and unmistakably erroneous and denied the Veteran's motion to reverse or revise the decision on grounds of CUE.