Other conditions decisions — 2000

The Board dismissed the motion for revision of a prior decision based on clear and unmistakable error due to insufficient compliance with filing requirements.

The Board denied the claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 due to a myocardial infarction, finding no evidence of additional disability resulting from VA treatment or any failure to diagnose.

The Board denied service connection for the residuals of an injury to the left arm, finding that the claim was not well grounded due to a lack of evidence showing in-service aggravation. The appellant argued there was clear and unmistakable error because the evidence showed his condition had been aggravated by service.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim of service connection for a left eye disorder due to new and material evidence submitted since the July 1971 rating decision. However, the claim remains in dispute as there is no direct evidence linking the current condition to service.

The Board found that the veteran's current lower extremity conditions are not related to his service, specifically cold exposure in Alaska. The preponderance of evidence does not support a connection between the veteran's symptoms and his military service.

The veteran's claims for service connection were denied as his reported symptoms do not meet the criteria for a chronic disability under VA regulations, and there is no evidence of undiagnosed illness related to Persian Gulf service.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for basic eligibility for VA nonservice-connected disability pension benefits, finding that there was no legal basis on which to base the claim due to a lack of service in the U.S. Armed Forces.

The Board has determined that the current ratings for the appellant's service-connected fifth flexor tendon avulsion and residuals of a shrapnel wound to the right upper thigh are not in excess of the assigned evaluations, thus denying the claims.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for thoracic spine disability is well-grounded and remanded for further development.

The appeal has been dismissed as the appellant withdrew their appeal before a decision was made.

The Board found that the cause of the veteran's death was metastatic pancreatic cancer, which is not service-connected. The Board also determined that none of the veteran's service-connected disabilities were either the principal or contributory cause of his death.

The veteran's claim for compensation benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 was denied because the VA medical or surgical treatment did not result in additional disability.

The motion for revision based on clear and unmistakable error (CUE) was dismissed without prejudice due to the failure to identify the specific Board decision.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for a duodenal ulcer and residuals of right knee injury, finding that there was no competent medical evidence linking these conditions to his military service. The rating for residuals of right knee injury remains at 10 percent.

The Board determined that an effective date earlier than September 16, 1982 for the award of service connection for post traumatic stress disorder is not warranted.

The Board has determined that the reduction of the veteran's 100% evaluation for hairy cell leukemia to a 30% rating in June 1993 was improper, and restored the 100% evaluation effective September 1, 2023.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for a bilateral eye disability, diagnosed as ischemic optic neuritis and keratoconus, as residual to toxin or chemical exposure during active service due to lack of competent medical evidence linking his current disabilities to such exposure.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals has remanded the case for further development, including a VA psychiatric examination to determine whether the veteran is competent for VA purposes. The case will be returned to the Board for readjudication.

The Board denied DIC benefits and did not reopen the claim for service connection due to lack of new and material evidence.

The Board has determined that the appellant cannot be recognized as the surviving spouse of the veteran for VA benefit purposes.