Sleep apnea Board decisions

The veteran's service-connected bilateral pes planus, lumbosacral strain, and hiatal hernia are being remanded for further development to determine the current severity of each condition.

The Board finds no evidence of a nexus between the veteran's current diagnoses and his period of active service, resulting in denial of all claims.

The Board found that the veteran's allergic rhinitis and sleep apnea did not manifest during service or are related to his service-connected conditions, thus denying service connection for these conditions.

The VA determined that the veteran's disc disease of the lumbosacral spine did not warrant a rating in excess of 40 percent, as his symptoms and range of motion were within the criteria for a 40 percent rating under the old rating criteria. The Board found no evidence to support a higher rating based on the current or previous diagnostic codes.

The veteran's lumbosacral strain warrants a staged rating of 20 percent from October 25, 2005 and 10 percent from December 30, 2005.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for a rating in excess of 60 percent for lumbosacral strain with traumatic arthritis, finding that the disability picture did not warrant such a higher rating based on the current evidence.

The veteran seeks service connection for DFSP of the chest, which he contends is due to exposure to various toxic substances in service. The Board has remanded the case for further development regarding potential exposure to herbicide agents and other contaminants.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings and effective dates for his service-connected lumbosacral strain, cervical strain, right knee strain with patella bursitis, left knee strain with patella bursitis, and pseudofolliculitis barbae.

The Board denied a higher initial evaluation for the veteran's lumbosacral spine disability, finding that the evidence did not support a rating in excess of 40 percent.

The VA determined that the veteran's lumbosacral strain does not warrant a rating higher than 20 percent, as his range of motion is sufficient to meet the criteria for a 20 percent disability rating under the revised spinal disability evaluation criteria.

The Board found that the veteran's current low back disability did not originate in service and is not related to any incident of service. The claim for service connection was denied.

The Board denied service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, a chronic gastrointestinal disorder, and a chronic prostate disorder. Service connection was also denied for bilateral hearing loss, Hepatitis C, and sleep apnea.,Service connection was not granted for PTSD or tinnitus due to insufficient evidence.

The Board found that the veteran's preexisting pes planus did not worsen during service, and thus denied his claim for service connection. The Board also determined that he did not have any current disabilities involving the lumbosacral spine, cervical spine, hips, knees or ankles due to disease or injury incurred in service.

The veteran's initial claim for a higher rating for his lumbosacral strain with degenerative disc disease was granted, but the maximum schedular rating of 40 percent is not warranted as there were no incapacitating episodes during the appeal period.

The Board has determined that the veteran's lumbosacral strain is related to his active service and grants service connection for this condition.

The Board has ordered a new VA examination to determine if the veteran's service-connected disabilities render him unemployable, considering all of his conditions together.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining medical records and personnel information. The veteran's claim for service connection will be reviewed based on the evidence obtained.

The Board found that the veteran's current psychiatric disability (other than PTSD) and sleep disorder were not incurred in or aggravated by active service. The veteran was denied service connection for these conditions.

The Board has remanded the case for further development due to incomplete medical records and need for additional examinations.