The Veteran's residuals of myocardial infarction with coronary artery bypass grafting have been characterized by normal left ventricular function, an ejection fraction of no less than 60 percent, and no evidence of congestive heart failure. The Board finds that the criteria for a higher evaluation under the applicable rating schedule have not been met.
The deciding factor: The Veteran's METs level is currently assessed at 7.2, which does not meet the requirements for a higher evaluation as per the current VA Rating Schedule.
- Claimed conditions
- residuals of myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass grafting
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- 30%
- Decision date
- March 8, 2010
- Citation
- 1008783
This is a plain-language summary generated by AI from a public Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision. It can contain errors — always verify against the original. Look up the original decision on VA.gov (opens in a new tab) using citation 1008783.
What this means for you
A denial is a starting point, not the end of the road. You can see why this claim fell short — and, if you are still inside the one-year window, the appeal lanes that may remain open to you.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Granted
The veteran's appeal for an increased disability rating was granted, and they are now entitled to a 100% disability rating due to their heart conditions.
- Granted
The Board has granted the Veteran's application to readjudicate his claims for service connection for sleep apnea and residuals of myocardial infarction, finding new evidence relevant to these issues.,Service connection is granted for sleep apnea as secondary to tinnitus and residuals of myocardial infarction as secondary to sleep apnea.
- Granted
The Veteran's service-connected heart condition and related disabilities render him unable to secure or follow substantially gainful employment, warranting a TDIU rating.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's spouse, L.H., is the caregiver and has been providing personal care services for him. The Board found that participation in the PCAFC would significantly enhance his ability to live safely at home. However, the claim was remanded due to incomplete caregiver training and assessment.
Free starter guide for your own claim
Reading this because you were denied or under-rated? Get the plain-English next steps — your appeal options, the deadline that protects you, and how appeals like yours turn out. One email, no spam.
We will only use this to send the guide. No spam, unsubscribe any time. We never sell your information.
We are not the VA. Veterans’ Rights is an independent resource built for veterans. We are not the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, not part of the government, and not endorsed by any government agency.
This is general information, not legal advice. For advice about your own situation, talk to a VA-accredited representative — many help for free.