The Veteran's claim for an initial rating in excess of 10 percent prior to March 30, 2018, for service-connected atrial fibrillation is denied as there was no evidence showing more than four episodes per year of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or other supraventricular tachycardia documented by ECG or Holter monitor.
The deciding factor: The preponderance of the evidence did not show more than four episodes per year of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or other supraventricular tachycardia documented by ECG or Holter monitor, as required for a higher rating under Diagnostic Code 7010.
- Claimed conditions
- atriial fibrillation
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- 10%
- Decision date
- June 27, 2019
- Citation
- 19150424
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 claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus type II has been granted, and the Board also reopened his previously denied claims for heart disorder (atrial fibrillation and cardiomegaly), left upper extremity peripheral neuropathy, right lower extremity peripheral neuropathy, and left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy. The appeal is remanded for further development.
- Denied
The Veteran's claim for a rating in excess of 30 percent for coronary artery disease from May 15, 2018 was denied. The claim for TDIU on a schedular basis since December 22, 2021 is granted.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to deficiencies in obtained contract medical opinions, particularly regarding potential links between the Veteran's service and his death from metastatic melanoma. The examiner is required to address submitted literature and consider contributory causes of death as listed on the death certificate.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient medical opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran's heart disorder, specifically whether it is related to his active duty service and/or herbicide exposure. The Veteran will need to provide additional records and a new VA medical opinion.
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.