The Board denied initial compensable ratings for cold injury residuals of the right and left feet, finding that hyperhidrosis alone is insufficient to warrant a compensable rating.
The deciding factor: The Veteran's symptoms related to his feet are not due to his service-connected cold injury residuals.
- Claimed conditions
- Cold injury residuals
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- November 17, 2020
- Citation
- 20073493
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 1,863 · Granted: 26% (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 20073493.
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.
- Dismissed
The Veteran withdrew all appeals related to his cold injury residuals, including the reduction of his rating from 30% to 20%. The Board dismissed the appeal as a result.
- Granted
The Board has granted separate, 10 percent ratings for the Veteran's cold injury residuals of both feet. The appeal is denied as there is no evidence of tissue loss, nail abnormalities, color changes, locally impaired sensation, hyperhidrosis, or X-ray abnormalities (osteoporosis, subarticular punched out lesions, or osteoarthritis).
- Granted
The Veteran's right knee disability, headache disorder, and cold injury residuals are all found to be related to his service. The Veteran is granted service connection for these conditions.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient medical opinion regarding whether the Veteran's PTSD contributed to his death. The appellant contends that frequent startle responses from her husband's service-connected hearing loss and PTSD exacerbated by remodeling work at their home likely contributed to his death.
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.