Other conditions decisions — 2002

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent for post cholecystectomy syndrome, finding that her symptoms did not warrant a higher evaluation under any applicable diagnostic codes.

The Board found that the veteran's service-connected osteomyelitis did not cause or significantly contribute to his death from arteriosclerotic vascular disease, which was first diagnosed years after separation from service.

The Board has determined that the veteran's left eye diplopia does not meet or approximate the criteria for a rating higher than 30 percent, as there is no evidence of enucleation or blindness in the non-service-connected right eye.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for peripheral vascular disease of the bilateral lower extremities, including phlebitis, finding that there was no evidence linking his current condition to his period of active service.

The VA denied an increased rating for status post circumcision of the penis with subsequent infection and skin graft to the shaft of the penis, finding that it does not result in erectile dysfunction.

The Board determined that L.J.A. could not be recognized as the veteran's surviving spouse for VA benefit purposes due to a prior undissolved marriage and the recognition of M.M.A., who was already identified as the veteran's surviving spouse.

The Board found that the appellant's arthritis was not incurred in or aggravated by military service and denied his claim.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for arthritis of the right hand, finding that there was no evidence linking his current disability to service or any presumptive period.

The Board has denied the veteran's claim for service connection for blood clots in the legs, finding that there is no current disability and noting that the evidence does not support a diagnosis of thrombophlebitis during service.

The veteran's unauthorized medical expenses incurred at DHMC from June 22, 1999 through July 15, 1999 were denied as VA facilities could not handle his injury and he had a total disability rating based on individual unemployability.

The Board has determined that the appellant's claim for an earlier effective date for a 30 percent rating for weak feet with painful callosities is denied, as the evidence does not show timely appeal of the January 1996 denial and the next claim was received on July 29, 1998.

The Board found no fault on the part of VA in providing medical care, and denied compensation for additional disability resulting from VA medical care.

The veteran's appeal was dismissed due to his withdrawal of the appeal prior to a decision being made.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for colon cancer, finding that it was not incurred or aggravated by active service and specifically noting that Agent Orange exposure is not presumed for gastrointestinal tract tumors.

The Board denied the veteran's request to reopen his claim for service connection due to lack of new and material evidence, despite previous denial in July 1994. The RO found that the veteran was not on active duty at the time of the November 1991 motor vehicle accident.

The Board denied the appellant's claim of being recognized as the veteran's surviving spouse for death benefits due to insufficient evidence showing a valid common law marriage.

The Board has granted waiver of recovery for $24,000 of the overpayment but denied it for the remaining $5,000. The veteran's fault in creating the debt is considered to be significantly outweighed by VA's fault.

The veteran's request for a waiver of recovery of an overpayment of improved pension benefits was granted by the Board, as there is insufficient evidence to establish bad faith on his part in creating the overpayment.

The Board found that the overpayment of VA compensation benefits in the amount of $3287 was not properly created due to VA administrative error, and thus denied the veteran's request for a waiver of recovery.

The Board denied an apportionment of the veteran's VA disability compensation benefits on behalf of their two minor children, finding that the appellant did not meet the criteria for a special apportionment due to her better financial position compared to the veteran.