Other conditions decisions — 2001

The Board has granted the veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD, finding that it is related to his in-service stressors.

The VA has determined that the veteran's conjunctivitis, currently rated at 10 percent disabling, does not warrant a higher rating as there is no evidence of active pathology or residuals thereof.

The Board has determined that the appellant's claims of entitlement to service connection for the cause of the veteran's death and DEA benefits have been denied due to a lack of new and material evidence.,Specifically, the RO found that the submitted evidence did not bear directly and substantially upon the specific matter under consideration.

The veteran's left inguinal hernia repair with ilio-inguinal nerve palsy is currently rated at 10 percent, effective from March 1999.,The veteran's T7 compression fracture is currently rated as one 10 percent evaluation, effective from March 1999.

The Board has determined that the veteran's service-connected right eye disability warrants a 10 percent rating, effective from the date of the decision.

The veteran's duodenal ulcer disease is rated under Diagnostic Code 7305, and a VA examination is needed to determine the severity of his condition. The case will be remanded for further development.

The Board has determined that the appellant is entitled to Montgomery GI Bill education benefits for the period from August 21, 1995, to December 14, 1995.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have a disability manifested by rectal bleeding that was incurred in or aggravated by service.

The veteran's initial evaluations for his 'shrapnel' injuries of the left posterior thigh and left elbow have been granted at a 10 percent rating.

The VA has determined that the veteran's left knee disability, which includes patellofemoral pain syndrome with meniscus tear repair and loose body, does not warrant a rating higher than 20 percent.

The Board found that the veteran's left Horner's syndrome is unrelated to VA treatment for a neck abscess in October and November of 1986, and also unrelated to a right axillary block performed during surgery in February 1992. Therefore, compensation pursuant to 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 was denied.

The Board determined that the appellant did not meet the basic eligibility requirements for VA benefits due to a lack of recognized service in the United States Armed Forces.

The Board has ordered a remand due to the need for additional evidence, including service medical records from the veteran's second period of service and an examination to determine the etiology of any diagnosed cancer.

The Board denied service connection for a prolapsed uterus in January 1978, concluding that the condition pre-existed service and was not aggravated by service. The veteran's motion alleging clear and unmistakable error (CUE) is denied.

The appellant's application for death pension benefits was denied because her household income exceeded the maximum allowable rate established by VA laws and regulations.

The veteran's postoperative residuals of left Achilles tendon repair are rated at 30 percent, which is the maximum rating available under VA regulations. The Board finds that her disability does not warrant a higher rating and she does not meet the criteria for a TDIU due to her service-connected condition.

The Board found that the veteran's dysthymia did not meet the criteria for a higher rating, and his radial arteriovenous malformation did not result in loss of use or ankylosis of any fingers. The combined disability rating was 50 percent.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for non-service-connected pension benefits because the in-home attendant fee paid to his spouse could not be considered as a deductible medical expense, and thus did not reduce his countable income.

The VA granted a total rating for compensation based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities effective February 25, 2019. The veteran's angioneurotic edema was the primary condition considered.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for additional medical development and a Board hearing.