Other conditions decisions — 2000

The veteran's claim for an increased rating for his right knee disability was denied as the evidence did not support a higher evaluation based on functional impairment or additional chronic impairment.

The Board found no medical evidence to support the claim that the veteran's current throat disorder is related to his military service, and thus denied the claim.

The Board denied the appellant's claim that her income from an individual retirement account should be counted as income for VA improved death pension purposes, and also remanded the issue of waiver of overpayment to the RO.

The veteran's claims for increased rating, service connection, TTR and TDIU were denied. The denial of the service connection claim is due to lack of competent medical evidence linking his current coronary artery disease with hypertension to military service or post-service symptomatology.

The veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 was denied because there is no evidence of fault on the part of VA in providing treatment, and his current disability is not linked to such a refusal.

The veteran's appeal is held in abeyance pending resolution of the basic eligibility for Department of Veterans Affairs loan guaranty benefits issue. The case must be returned to the Board after a hearing on this matter.

The VA has denied the veteran's claim for a compensable evaluation for his residuals of a shell fragment wound to the left buttock, finding that the condition does not meet the criteria for a higher rating.

The Board has denied the veteran's claim for a higher rating for his right eye disability, finding that the current overall disability is 30 percent and deducting the pre-treatment level of 10 percent to result in no more than a 20 percent rating.

The veteran is dissatisfied with the initial rating assigned for his service-connected PTSD, and the RO has increased the evaluation to 50 percent effective February 10, 1997. The case is being remanded for further review under both old and new criteria.

The Board has determined that the veteran's skin disorder is well-grounded and granted service connection based on new evidence.

The Board denied the claim as there is no medical evidence showing a nexus between the cause of death (hemorrhagic pancreatitis) and service or any alleged incident therein, including exposure to Agent Orange.

The Board has granted a 40 percent disability evaluation for the residuals of pilonidal sinus excision, posterior sacral area. A separate 10 percent evaluation is also granted for the surgical scar overlying the pilonidal sinus excision.

The veteran's claim for VA disability compensation for loss of vision is denied as it is not well grounded.

The veteran's claim for an increased rating for his service-connected ankylosing spondylitis is being remanded due to the need for additional evidence and examination.

The Board denied the motion alleging clear and unmistakable error in their November 1997 decision, concluding that there was no evidence of CUE.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the claim for service connection for lung disease due to exposure to chlorine gas, but the claim remains not well grounded as there is no competent medical evidence of a nexus between the current diagnosis and service.

The veteran is dissatisfied with the initial non-compensable rating assigned following a grant of service connection for right maxillary sinus mucous retention cyst, post operative with septoplasty. The RO has since increased his rating to 10 percent effective November 19, 1994.

The Board has determined that the appellant's esophageal cancer is not service-connected as it does not meet the criteria for presumptive service connection based on exposure to herbicide agents, and there is no evidence linking the condition to his military service.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for dysthymia and aggravation of nonservice-connected L3-4 and L4-5 bulging discs as secondary to his service-connected left knee injury. The Board found that the veteran did not submit evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that his claims were plausible, and denied both issues.

The Board found that the veteran's claim for service connection and pension purposes was not well-grounded due to lack of competent evidence linking his current heel fractures to his military service.