Other conditions decisions — 2003

The Board found that the appellant's deceased spouse had no recognized active duty service, and therefore did not meet the requirements for veteran status or eligibility for VA benefits.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date of July 28, 1971, for the grant of a total rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU). The decision found that there was no clear and unmistakable error in the original rating decision from December 1967.

The Board has granted a 10 percent rating for nasopharyngitis and gastroenteritis, effective from the date of the decision.

The veteran's appeal is about a claim for an increased rating for his postoperative left great toe bunionectomy with metatarsophalangeal silastic joint replacement and associated chronic first submetatarsal head callus, currently rated at 20%. The RO must obtain all relevant medical records from SSA, VA Medical Centers, and other sources. They must also ensure that the veteran is provided proper VCAA notice.

The Board has granted a 50% evaluation for the veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder, currently diagnosed as dysthymia, based on symptoms such as frequent panic attacks and anxiety.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for loss of use of both legs and an initial compensable rating for cold weather injury, as well as his request for an effective date prior to May 14, 2001. The TDIU claim was also denied.

The Board found that the appellant is not entitled to recognition as the surviving spouse of the veteran for purposes of VA death benefits due to a separation caused by her own actions, and did not meet the criteria for continuous cohabitation.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for burial and plot-interment benefits, finding that MJ, the veteran's daughter, was entitled to these benefits as she personally paid for the veteran's final expenses.

The Board found that there is no evidence of a hernia in the veteran's right groin, and thus denied his claim for a compensable evaluation for herniorrhaphy, inguinal.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for an increased rating of his service-connected hallux valgus, right foot condition.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of a nose injury, finding no evidence linking his disability to military service.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an increased rating for post-inflammatory melanosis of the right buttock, finding that he failed to report for a required VA examination without good cause.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for non-service-connected disability pension benefits as his service did not qualify him under VA regulations.

The Board found that the veteran's Stargardt's macular degeneration was a congenital defect and not subject to service connection under the law.

The Board found that there is no evidence linking the veteran's condition of the feet to his service, and denied his claim for service connection.

The veteran's claim for an increased evaluation and earlier effective date for service connection were both denied. The initial evaluation of 10% for residuals of a left middle finger injury is upheld, as the disability does not meet criteria for a higher rating. An earlier effective date was also denied due to lack of evidence of prior claims.

The Board has determined that the veteran's bilateral leg disorder is not proximately due to or the result of his service-connected low back disability.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for recognition as the surviving spouse of the veteran, finding that she did not meet the legal requirements to be considered a surviving spouse.

The veteran is seeking reimbursement for unauthorized ambulance expenses incurred on January 13, 2002. The VAMC denied the claim due to the veteran's annual household income exceeding the maximum annual rate of pension. The Board has ordered additional development including obtaining the bill for ambulance services and financial information from the veteran.

The Board has ordered further development due to the need for additional evidence and clarification. The case is now being remanded back to the RO for the requested development.