Other conditions decisions — 2003

The Board denied the veteran's claims of entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder of the feet and a nervous disability. The decision found no new and material evidence to reopen the claim for a skin disorder, and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish a current nervous disability.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development and consideration of the claim seeking a rating in excess of 20 percent for the service-connected left leg disability based upon a review of all relevant evidence, including any new evidence received since its most recent consideration.

The Board is considering whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the appellant's claim for VA disability benefits. The issue is whether the appellant meets the basic eligibility requirements for VA benefits, which involves verifying qualifying military service.

The Board has denied the veteran's claim for a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for his service-connected residuals, crush injury, right leg with post-operative femoral popliteal artery bypass graft.

The Board found that the appellant had no recognized service in the United States Armed Forces and denied his claim for basic eligibility for VA benefits.

The Board has granted a 30 percent evaluation for the veteran's left hand disability, effective from the date of service connection.

The Board found that the veteran's failure to accurately report his spouse's receipt of additional income from unemployment and IRS was not an intent to seek an unfair advantage with knowledge of the likely consequences, thus waiving recovery of the overpayment.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection and compensation for bilateral ear disorder and chronic laryngitis, as these issues were not related to his period of active service.

The Board has ordered further development in the veteran's case, including obtaining medical records from various healthcare facilities. The appeal is being remanded for additional consideration.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for a cyst in the left side of the mouth and an initial disability evaluation for chronic vaginal infection, finding no evidence of current disabilities related to service.

The Board denied service connection for monomelic amyotrophy of the left hand and arm, finding no evidence of an in-service injury or disease related to this condition. The claim for bilateral hearing loss was also denied.

The Board determined that the veteran's service-connected conditions did not cause his death or contribute substantially to it.

The Board found no evidence of current degenerative or gouty arthritis of the hands and denied the veteran's claim.

The Board denied increased ratings for post-traumatic degenerative joint disease of the left and right knees, finding that the veteran's knee disabilities did not warrant a rating higher than 10 percent.

The Board found that the RO's decision to grant service connection for right subtotal craniotomy, with brain tumor removal, due to exposure to herbicide agent (Agent Orange) was not clearly and unmistakably erroneous. However, the appeal of the severance is granted subject to the law and regulations governing payment of monetary benefits.

The Board has ordered further development due to incomplete records and the need for clarification of evidence. The case is now remanded to the RO for additional development.

The Board has ordered additional development for the veteran's claim of service connection for gastritis, including a VA examination. The case is now being remanded to the RO for further action.

The veteran's claims for increased evaluations for trigeminal neuralgia and muscle damage were denied as the evidence did not show that his conditions warranted higher ratings.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for a total rating for compensation purposes based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability, finding no basis for such an earlier effective date.

The Board has determined that additional development is necessary and the case is being remanded to the RO for further action.