The Veteran's initial claims for increased ratings for diabetes mellitus, type II were denied prior to April 9, 2008. From April 9, 2008, forward, the Veteran was granted a 20% rating.,From May 23, 2008, the Veteran's claim for an increased rating for diabetes mellitus, type II was denied.,The Veteran's claims for service connection for cancer of the lumbosacral spine and arthritis of multiple joints were both denied. The loss of bilateral great toenails was also not found to be related to service.,Service connection for cancer of the lumbosacral spine was denied as it is not due to or aggravated by his service-connected prostate cancer. Service connection for arthritis of multiple joints was denied as there is no evidence that it was incurred in service.,The Veteran's loss of bilateral great toenails was also denied, with no indication that it was related to service.
The deciding factor: The Veteran's diabetes mellitus, type II has been managed by a restricted diet and an oral hypoglycemic agent since April 9, 2008. The initial rating of 10% prior to this date is upheld as the criteria for higher ratings are not met.,From May 23, 2008, forward, the Veteran's diabetes mellitus, type II has been managed by a restricted diet and an oral hypoglycemic agent. The initial rating of 20% from this date is upheld as the criteria for higher ratings are not met.,The evidence does not support service connection for cancer of the lumbosacral spine or arthritis of multiple joints, nor was there any indication that the Veteran's loss of bilateral great toenails were related to his service. The denial of these claims is based on lack of evidence supporting a nexus between the conditions and service.,Service connection for cancer of the lumbosacral spine was denied as it is not due to or aggravated by his service-connected prostate cancer. Service connection for arthritis of multiple joints was denied as there is no evidence that it was incurred in service.,The Veteran's loss of bilateral great toenails was also denied, with no indication that it was related to service.
- Claimed conditions
- diabetes mellitus, type II, cancer of the lumbosacral spine, arthritis of multiple joints, loss of bilateral great toenails
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- July 27, 2010
- Citation
- 1027968
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 1027968.
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.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board remands the claims for service connection for hypertension and diabetes mellitus to obtain further medical opinions regarding their potential relationship to toxic exposures during active service.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board remands the claims for service connection for diabetes mellitus and bilateral knee strain to obtain additional medical opinions.
- Partly granted
The Board denied increased ratings for hypertension, atherosclerosis, and diabetes mellitus; granted service connection for erectile dysfunction and skin cancer; and restored the 10 percent rating for hypertension.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board remands the claims for service connection for diabetes mellitus and sleep apnea to obtain a TERA opinion due to the Veteran's participation in a toxic exposure risk activity during his service in the Southwest Asia theater of operations.
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.