Hypertension VA Claim Grants

Findings of Fact (verbatim from decision)

Resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, his diagnosed hypertension is etiologically related to his presumed exposure to herbicide agents during service.

Findings of Fact (verbatim from decision)

The Veteran has a current diagnosis of hypertension that began in service.

Findings of Fact (verbatim from decision)

1. It was not clear and unmistakable error (CUE) as a matter of law or fact that the Veteran did not have exposure to herbicide agents during his service in Korea. 2. The Veteran's right lower extremity peripheral neuropathy is proximately due to his service connected diabetes. 3. The Veteran's left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy is proximately due to his service connected diabetes. 4. The Veteran's hypertension is proximately due to his service connected diabetes.

Reasons & Bases (verbatim from decision)

The Veteran had active service from August 1968 to April 1970. These matters are on appeal from a July 2017 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office (RO). The Veteran had a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in August 2021. A transcript has been associated with the file. Severance Claim The Veteran contends the severance of service connection for his diabetes was erroneous. The RO granted entitlement to service connection for diabetes in a June 2013 rating decision. In a May 2017 rating decision, the RO proposed to sever service connection for diabetes. The RO said the evidence did not show the Veteran had been exposed to herbicide agents while in Korea. In July 2017, the RO severed service connection for diabetes, effective October1, 2017, with notice sent to the Veteran in the same month. Previously granted benefits will be severed only where evidence establishes that the award of service connection was clear and unmistakable error (CUE) (the burden of proof being on the Government). 38?C.F.R. §?3.105(d). When severance is considered warranted, a rating proposing severance will be prepared setting forth all material facts and reasons.…

Findings of Fact (verbatim from decision)

1. On June 28, 2022, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board received notification from the Veteran that a withdrawal of his appeals for entitlement to an effective date earlier than August 20, 2018 for the grant of a 30 percent disability rating for a cervical spine disability, entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for a left shoulder disability, entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for a lumbar spine disability and entitlement to service connection for a diarrhea disability was requested. 2. In a December 2014 decision, the RO denied the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for hypertension and right ankle disabilities. 3…

Reasons & Bases (verbatim from decision)

The Veteran served on active duty from July 2004 to May 2014. These matters are before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2018 rating decision of a Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In June 2022, the Veteran was afforded a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of the hearing testimony is of record. The Board additionally notes that the Veteran also previously testified in a January 2020 hearing before a VLJ on issues not presently before the Board which were subsequently adjudicated in a March 2020 Board decision. While the issues are not before the Board, transcript of the hearing testimony is also of record. In the February 2020 statement of the case (SOC), the RO, in part, reopened and then denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for hypertension. The Board points out that regardless of what the RO or AMC has done, the Board must address the question of whether new and material evidence to reopen the claim has been received because the issue goes to the Board's jurisdiction to reach the underlying claims and adjudicate them on a de novo basis. See Barnett v. Brown, 83 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1996). In other words, the Board must find new and material evidence in order to establish its jurisdiction to review the merits of a previously denied claim.…

Findings of Fact (verbatim from decision)

1. A November 2001 rating decision denied service connection for CAD. The Veteran did not appeal or submit new and material evidence within a year of the rating decision; thus, the November 2001 rating decision became final. At the time of the November 2001 rating decision, the record did not contain evidence that the Veteran suffered an in-service event or injury or nexus. After the rating decision, the Veteran stated that the stress endured during active duty caused his CAD and provided medical evidence. This new and material evidence raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 2.…

Reasons & Bases (verbatim from decision)

The Veteran served on active duty from November 1971 to November 1976. He appeals a November 2017 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). A Veteran is entitled to VA disability compensation if there is a disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty in active service, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty in active service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1110. Generally, to establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a veteran must show: (1) a present disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service, the so-called "nexus" requirement. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (2004). The determination of whether the requirements of service connection have been met is based on an analysis of all the evidence of record and the evaluation of its credibility and probative value. See Baldwin v. West, 13 Vet. App. 1, 8 (1999). When there is an approximate balance of evidence regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination of the matter, the benefit of the doubt in resolving each issue shall be given to the claimant. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38…