Other conditions decisions — 2000

The Board has granted a 30 percent rating for the service-connected right foot injury, which was previously rated at 10 percent.

The veteran's claim for a higher educational assistance rate was denied as there is no legal basis to award such a rate under Chapter 32, Title 38, United States Code.

The Board has granted a 20 percent rating for the veteran's duodenal ulcer disease, which is currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for residuals of squamous cell carcinoma of the right base of the tongue and an increased evaluation for kidney stones. The evidence did not support a finding that these conditions were related to his military service, including exposure to herbicides.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for the cause of his death and for Chapter 35 benefits due to a lack of legal merit or entitlement under the law.

The VA determined that the appellant's claim for benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 is not well-grounded because there is no evidence of additional disability resulting from her surgery and treatment.

The VA determined that the veteran's lateral epicondylitis of the right elbow warranted a noncompensable evaluation since September 1, 1995.

The veteran's service-connected conjunctivitis is currently rated at 10 percent, and the Board finds no evidence to warrant a higher rating.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for periodontal disease, including periostitis, as it is not a compensable disability and does not meet any of the eligibility criteria for VA outpatient dental treatment.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for hiatal hernia and gastroenteritis as there is no competent evidence showing that these conditions are currently present or related to service.

The Board has determined that the veteran's PTSD warrants a 70 percent rating, effective February 26, 1992, based on the severity of his symptoms and their impact on social and occupational functioning.

The Board denied the claim of entitlement to service connection for the cause of the veteran's death, finding that there was no objective medical evidence demonstrating a relationship between the veteran's service and his fatal cancer.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for improved death pension benefits due to her income exceeding the maximum rate for a surviving spouse with three dependents, even after applying the hardship exclusion of children's income.

The Board finds that VA treatment caused or hastened the veteran's death due to stomach cancer, which was not detected in its early stages and resulted from a delay in diagnosis. The decision grants DIC benefits.

The veteran's case is being returned to the RO for consideration of additional evidence and records submitted to the member of the Board at the February 2000 hearing, the VA audiometric examination of March 2000, the revised schedular criteria for the evaluation of service-connected defective hearing which became effective June 10, 1999, and the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1).

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection due to lack of evidence linking his current right foot conditions to his inservice injury. The claim was not reopened as new and material evidence was not provided.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for death pension, service connection for the cause of death, educational assistance under Chapter 35, and accrued benefits due to a lack of legal merit.

The Board has determined that the overpayment of improved pension benefits was properly created due to the veteran's failure to report his income, and thus a waiver of recovery is granted on the basis of equity and good conscience.

The Board denied the motion for revision or reversal of the October 1997 decision on grounds of clear and unmistakable error, finding that the moving party's allegations were insufficient to meet the pleading requirements.

The case is remanded for additional development, including obtaining a medical opinion regarding the veteran's ability to be transferred to a VA facility during periods of hospitalization. The issue will then be re-adjudicated.