Other conditions decisions — 2001

The veteran failed to submit a timely substantive appeal regarding his claim of entitlement to an extension of a temporary total rating for convalescence beyond January 31, 1994. As a result, the Board has no jurisdiction over this matter and the appeal must be dismissed.

The VA has determined that the veteran's service-connected residuals of a left eye injury with right eye pinguecula do not warrant a compensable evaluation.

The veteran's unauthorized medical expenses incurred at Baylor University Medical Center from June 24, 1999 to August 17, 1999 were related to his service-connected circulatory disability. The Board found that VA or other Federal facilities were not feasibly available and an attempt to use them beforehand would have been reasonable, sound, wise, or practicable.

The Board denied service connection for a cardiovascular disability, finding no evidence of its onset in or related to service or any service-connected condition.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for an allergic disorder, a right leg disorder, and an increased rating for duodenal ulcer disease. The claim to reopen a psychiatric disorder was dismissed due to untimely filing of a substantive appeal.

The veteran withdrew his appeal for pension benefits, so the case is dismissed.

The veteran's service-connected left eye choroiditis is not sufficient to qualify for specially adapted housing or a special home adaptation grant because the blindness in his right eye, which resulted from non-service-connected injury prior to service, precludes him from meeting the eligibility criteria.

The Board has determined that the RO failed to obtain the veteran's complete service medical records and requested documents from his unit, which could have provided evidence of a left foot injury during active duty. The case is remanded for further development.

The Board has determined that the veteran's residuals from a left foot injury are moderately severe, warranting a 20% rating under Diagnostic Code 5284.

The veteran's overpayment of VA improved pension benefits in the amount of $9,065.00 was created due to her failure to report income from an annuity purchased by her children on her behalf. The Board found that this overpayment was not due to error solely on the part of the VA and denied any claim for waiver based on fraud, misrepresentation or bad faith.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claim for an initial rating in excess of 0 percent for his service-connected flash burns of the hands and face is denied.

The veteran's hand and arm injuries were not due to VA treatment, and the claim is denied.

The Board has granted an effective date of December 15, 1997 for a 10 percent rating for post-operative left inguinal herniorrhaphy. The veteran's claim was received on that date.

The Board has determined that the veteran's current diagnosis of mitral valve prolapse is not related to service, and thus denied her claim for service connection.

The Board denied ratings in excess of 10 percent for post-traumatic stress disorder and narcolepsy, finding that the evidence did not warrant such a rating. The veteran's motion alleging clear and unmistakable error was denied.

The Board denied the appellant's request for a waiver of recovery of an overpayment of VA death pension benefits in the amount of $3,600. The decision found that recovery would not be against equity and good conscience due to the appellant's financial circumstances.

The veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of unauthorized prescription medications from a non-VA pharmacy was denied as the VA facilities were available and no medical emergency existed.

The veteran's gastrointestinal disability is currently manifested by subjective complaints but no objective clinical evidence supports higher ratings under applicable diagnostic codes. The current evaluation of 40% remains appropriate based on his symptoms and findings.

The Board denied the appellant's claim as his service did not establish him as a veteran for VA purposes.

The Board has determined that the creation of the overpayment did not involve fraud, misrepresentation, or bad faith on the part of the appellant. The claimant was notified in August 1994 of the special apportionment on behalf of the veteran's son and was divorced from the veteran at the time.