Other conditions decisions — 2002

The VA determined that the veteran's memory loss was not caused by VA treatment in May 1995, and therefore denied her claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151.

The Board has granted the veteran's claims for increased disability ratings for pes cavus and left varicocele, finding that these conditions are service-connected based on direct evidence. The hearing impairment claim was not addressed as it did not meet VA compensation criteria.

The veteran's anal sphincter impairment and residuals of an in-service closed colostomy are currently rated at 50 percent, but the evidence shows significant interruption in both internal and external sphincter muscles resulting in impairment of sphincter control with symptoms equally well described as extensive leakage and fairly frequent involuntary bowel movements. The Board has determined that a higher rating of 60 percent is warranted based on these findings.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an effective date earlier than April 26, 1994, for the assignment of a 100 percent evaluation for service-connected schizoaffective disorder.

The Board denied a rating in excess of 20 percent for left patellofemoral dysfunction, finding that the veteran's disability warranted only a 20 percent evaluation.

The Board found that there are no current residuals of the aseptic meningitis incurred in service.

The Board has determined that the veteran's service-connected burns of the lower extremities do not meet the criteria for an increased rating, as they are rated at their maximum level under applicable diagnostic codes.

The Board denied increased ratings for the veteran's residuals of a fracture of the left clavicle and colostomy, finding that neither condition warranted an increase beyond the current noncompensable rating.

The Board found that the veteran's death was not related to his service, as there is insufficient evidence to conclude that his cause of death (sudden cardiac death) was caused by an overdose of prescription medications for service-connected conditions.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for a compensable disability evaluation for his service-connected residuals of bilateral inguinal hernia repairs and earlier effective dates for service connection for tinnitus and headaches due to an undiagnosed illness. The Board found that the evidence did not support granting these benefits.

The Board has determined that a chronic skin condition involving the right foot was not shown to be present during active service and therefore denied the veteran's claim for service connection.

The veteran's esophageal hiatal hernia, status post fundoplasty, is rated at a 10 percent disability rating since the effective date of his claim.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for a skin disorder claimed as secondary to herbicide exposure and an increased rating for dry skin due to eczema of the thighs. The veteran was presumed exposed to Agent Orange during his service in Vietnam.

The VA denied a higher disability rating for the veteran's service-connected status post condylotomy of mandible due to temporomandibular joint disease (TMJ), currently rated as 20 percent disabling.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of removal of a foreign body from his right eye, finding that there were no current residuals and that the preexisting refractive error was not related to the inservice injury.

The Board dismissed the motion for revision of a decision denying new and material evidence to reopen a claim based on the character of service due to lack of finality.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for an effective date prior to December 16, 1994, for the grant of service connection for the cause of the veteran's death.

The Board denied initial compensable ratings for sclerosis of the right and left great toes, as well as a rating in excess of 10 percent for tendinitis of the left foot.

The Board denied the veteran's request for an apportionment of his VA benefits on behalf of his spouse due to insufficient evidence demonstrating financial hardship and because he was reasonably discharging his responsibility for support.