Other conditions decisions — 2000

The Board of Veterans' Appeals has denied the veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of a right leg injury.

The Board denied reopening the claim for service connection due to lack of new and material evidence, maintaining that the existing evidence was insufficient to reopen the case.

The veteran's claim for service connection for postoperative residuals of Dupuytren's contracture of the left finger was denied in an April 1992 rating decision. The veteran did not file a notice of disagreement, making this decision final.

The veteran died of an acute myocardial infarction in 1976. The cause of death is not related to service or a service-connected disability.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for cerebrovascular accident and cardiovascular disorder, finding that these conditions were not present during service or within one year of separation, and are not related to service.

The Board found that a timely substantive appeal was not perfected from the May 8, 1997 rating decision which recharacterized the veteran's service-connected right upper extremity disorder as right (minor) hand and wrist injury residuals including Muscle Group VII injury evaluated as 30 percent disabling. The issue of entitlement to an increased evaluation for the veteran's service-connected right hand and wrist disability is referred back to the RO.

The veteran's claims for service connection for a psychosis and substance abuse (other than for compensation purposes) were denied. However, the veteran was granted an increased rating of 70% for PTSD.

The Board has granted a 20 percent rating for uveitis since June 2, 1996. The skin disability claim is denied as there is no evidence of the required degree of impairment.

The Board has determined that the veteran's service connection claim for PTSD is granted based on a direct link between his current symptoms and an in-service stressor, without requiring any specific exposure basis or reopening of the claim.

The Board denied the reopening of a claim for service connection for residuals, post ingestion, stenosis of esophagus due to lack of new and material evidence.

The Board has granted service connection for a skin disorder, claimed as an epidermal cyst of the neck and dermatophytosis of the groin and back. The veteran's post-traumatic stress disorder was also granted with a 30% disability evaluation.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for a nervous condition. The claim is now reopened.

The Board denied reopening a claim for entitlement to service connection for a cardiovascular disorder due to lack of new and material evidence.

The VA surgery in October 1994 did not result in additional disability of the left hip and left leg, as there is no medical evidence linking these complaints to the surgery.

The Board has reopened the claim for service connection for left and right hip disorders due to a service-connected left ankle disorder. Service connection is granted for any increase in disability that results from aggravation of a nonservice-connected condition by a service-connected condition.

The Board has ordered a hearing before the RO and has also remanded the case due to changes in the law regarding veterans' claims assistance.

The veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 is granted as the Board finds it at least as likely as not that VA hospitalization and treatment in February 1988 caused his bilateral blindness.

The Board has determined that the reduction from a 100% evaluation to noncompensable for adenocarcinoma of the prostate with radical retropubic prostatectomy and bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection was proper. The veteran's current condition does not meet criteria for a compensable evaluation.

The veteran's appeal has been dismissed due to his death.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including a determination by the District Counsel as to whether the disputed land is 'submarginal land' and if so, whether rental proceeds from such lands are countable income for Improved Disability Pension purposes.