The Veteran's effective date for service connection of CAD was granted as January 9, 2009. The claim for an earlier effective date is denied.,The Veteran's initial rating for CAD associated with DM2 remains at 60 percent and no higher rating is granted.,The Veteran's rating for diabetic dermatopathy remains at 10 percent and no higher rating is granted.,The Veteran's rating for DM2 remains at 20 percent and no higher rating is granted.,The Veteran's ratings for PN in the LLE and RLE remain at 10 percent and no higher ratings are granted from August 15, 2016 onwards. Prior to that date, they were rated at 10 percent.,The Veteran was granted TDIU effective July 1, 2014.,No specific effective date is assigned for the grant of TDIU.
The deciding factor: The earliest claim for CAD was filed in January 2009 and thus the effective date remains at that time. The Veteran did not file an earlier claim prior to this date, as no documents or correspondence from before January 2009 indicate such intent.,CAD is rated based on its severity and current findings do not meet criteria for a higher rating (100% disabling).,The Veteran's skin condition affects less than 20 percent of his total body surface area, meeting the criteria for a 10% rating. No systemic therapy or other immunosuppressive drugs are required.,DM2 is rated based on its severity and current findings do not meet criteria for higher ratings (60% or more).,PN in both legs remains at 10% as it does not meet the criteria for a higher rating. The Veteran's condition from August 15, 2016 onwards is associated with PD.,The Veteran was unable to maintain gainful employment due to his service-connected conditions and thus qualifies for TDIU effective July 1, 2014.,No specific reasoning provided for the grant of TDIU.
- Claimed conditions
- Coronary artery disease (CAD), Diabetic dermatopathy, Diabetes mellitus type II (DM2)
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- 60%
- Decision date
- June 26, 2019
- Citation
- 19149740
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 2,500 · Granted: 29% (granted or partly granted, in the vetted decisions on this site)
Judge attribution: 2025 complete; earlier years partial.
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 19149740.
What this means for you
A grant means the Board agreed the veteran was entitled to the benefit. Decisions like this show the kind of evidence and arguments that tend to succeed for claims like it.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's current coronary artery disease with acute, subacute, or old myocardial infarction with coronary stent is being remanded for further evaluation due to the lack of a medical nexus between his service-connected hypertension and his heart condition.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claim for SMC based on aid and attendance from June 1, 2011, to May 24, 2017, finding that his need for regular aid and attendance was not established during this period.
- Denied
The Veteran's service connection claims for coronary artery disease and obstructive sleep apnea have been denied as there is no evidence of a nexus between the conditions and his military service.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has found new and relevant evidence for the claims of service connection for coronary artery disease (CAD) and an acquired psychiatric disorder. The AOJ is required to readjudicate these claims, taking into consideration all submitted evidence.
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.