Other conditions decisions — 2001

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for cephalalgia, a scalp laceration of the right temporal region, chronic back strain, and neck disorder. The appeals were not granted as the evidence did not support these claims.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for apportionment of his pension benefits, finding that the appellant's income exceeded her expenses and that need was not established. The veteran also had ongoing child support obligations.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for periodontal disease for the purpose of VA outpatient dental treatment, finding that there was no evidence linking his condition to service.

The Board has determined that the veteran's prostatitis does not warrant an evaluation in excess of 40 percent, and his impotency is not service-connected or secondary to his service-connected prostatitis.

The Board denied the veteran's request for a waiver to recover an overpayment of pension benefits, finding that it would not be against the principles of equity and good conscience to collect the debt.

The VA denied the veteran's claims for an increased rating for varicosities of the right testis and special monthly compensation based on loss of use of one testicle.

The Board has ordered the VA to obtain medical records and information from the appellant regarding her husband's exposure to radiation during service, as well as any treatment he received at VA facilities. The case is being remanded for further development.

The Board granted an earlier effective date of September 16, 1991 for service connection for mood disorder based on secondary service connection.

The veteran's knee disabilities, including traumatic arthritis and instability, are currently rated at 10 percent each. The Board found that the current ratings were appropriate based on the objective findings of range of motion.

The veteran's service-connected disabilities, including complete avulsion of the left brachial plexus with paralytic anesthesia of the left upper extremity with phantom limb pain (minor), are currently evaluated at 80 percent. The Board denied an increased rating for these conditions.

The Board has determined that the veteran's left eye disability was incurred in service and granted service connection for this condition.

The Board found no clear and unmistakable error in the March 1954 rating decisions that assigned noncompensable ratings for residuals of shell fragment wounds to the neck, left upper arm, and sacro-coccygeal area. The veteran's claims were denied.

The Board has denied reopening the appellant's claim for basic eligibility for VA benefits based on his service, as new and material evidence was not submitted.

The veteran's dental disorder is not a separate condition for which service connection can be granted. However, as he has a 100% disability rating for his service-connected psychiatric disorder, he is already eligible for the necessary dental treatment.

The Board has determined that the veteran's chronic brain syndrome, including its connection to a head injury sustained in February 1997, warrants a 30 percent disability evaluation.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for thrombophlebitis and increased evaluations for his knee disabilities, finding that there was no evidence of a causal relationship between these conditions and his military service.

The Board found that the veteran's stomach disorder and dizziness were not incurred in or aggravated by service, and neither peptic ulcer disease nor a duodenal ulcer may be presumed to have been incurred therein. The veteran's claims for service connection were denied.

The veteran's claim for reimbursement of unauthorized private medical expenses incurred in May 2000 is denied as he was not in receipt of service connection for any disorder at the time.

The Board has determined that the effective date for the grant of service connection for ankylosing spondylitis of the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine is May 27, 1988.

The Board denied reopening the appellant's claim for revocation of forfeiture of VA benefits due to lack of new and material evidence, as the submitted evidence was duplicative or did not substantially impact the issue.