Epilepsy & seizure disorders decisions — 2002

The veteran's depressive disorder was not incurred in or aggravated by active service. Service connection for migraine headaches is granted with an effective date of November 9, 2000.

The Board found that the veteran's seizure disorder is not causally related to service, including exposure to herbicide agents. The claim for service connection was denied.

The Board found that the veteran's seizure disorder did not meet or approximate the criteria for a rating in excess of 20 percent, as he had not averaged at least one major seizure in the last six months or two minor seizures in the last year.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have a current seizure disorder, and his headaches, memory loss, and disorientation are not related to service or any injury sustained during service. Therefore, these conditions do not meet the criteria for service connection.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim for service connection of a seizure disorder and has determined that new evidence supports this claim, finding that his seizures began within one year of his discharge from service. The Board also found in favor of the veteran on his back condition claim.

The Board denied the veteran's request for an earlier effective date of March 23, 1994 for the award of service connection for a seizure disorder. The claim was initially denied in July 1988 and reopened by the RO in October 1995.

The Board denied the reopening of the veteran's claim for service connection for epilepsy, finding that new and material evidence had not been presented.

The veteran's claims for service connection have been denied as there is no evidence of any disability in question being incurred or aggravated during his active military service.

The Board denied increased ratings for the veteran's service-connected seizure disorder and migraine headaches, finding that the current ratings adequately reflect the severity of his conditions.

The Board has determined that the veteran's need for regular aid and attendance due to his seizure disorder and alcohol abuse necessitates a grant of special monthly pension.

The appeal has been dismissed as the appellant withdrew their appeal.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have a seizure disability as a result of his service-connected schizophrenia, and thus denied the claim for service connection.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining VA and private medical records, arranging for a VA psychiatric examination, and readjudicating the claims on both direct and secondary bases.

The Board denied the application to reopen a claim for service connection for a seizure disorder, finding that the new evidence was cumulative or redundant and did not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim.

The Board denied service connection for residuals of a head injury and left shoulder injury. The veteran's post-traumatic seizure disorder is currently rated at 20%.

The VA has granted a 30 percent evaluation for the veteran's residuals of basal skull fracture with memory loss and seizures, effective as of the date of the decision. The veteran is not entitled to a compensable evaluation for his partial loss of sense of smell.

The Board found that the veteran's seizure disorder was not incurred in or aggravated by active service, and thus denied his claim.

The veteran's claim for reimbursement or payment of unauthorized private medical care, including transportation, received on October 27, 2000, was granted as the treatment was necessary due to an emergent condition and a VA facility was not feasibly available.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for increased evaluations for depression, grand mal epilepsy, residuals of a laceration of the forehead and skull, and residuals of a skull fracture as well as his claim for a total rating based on individual unemployability due to the veteran's failure to report for scheduled VA examinations.

The veteran's claims have been dismissed due to his death. The Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of these claims as he is deceased.