Other conditions decisions — 2003

The Board found that the veteran does not have an anal fissure, GERD, or eye injury related to his service. The Board also found no evidence of a left knee disability or bilateral CTS. Therefore, the claims for these conditions were denied.

The Board found that a valid VA loan guaranty indebtedness in the amount of $27,338.18 was created and that recovery would not be against equity and good conscience.

The Board has determined that the veteran's residuals of left leg distal fibula avulsion fracture do not warrant a rating in excess of 10 percent.

The veteran died of a heart attack, and his cardiovascular disease was not service-connected. The claim for dependency and indemnity compensation benefits under the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 1318 is denied.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for an increased rating for malaria, finding that his condition is inactive and does not qualify for a compensable evaluation.

The Board has ordered further development due to the need for additional evidence. The case is now being sent back to the RO for a VA dermatology examination and for any other necessary actions.

The Board has ordered further development due to pending evidence and the court's decision invalidating previous regulations. The case will be returned to the RO for additional development of VA outpatient and lab testing records related to the veteran's gastrointestinal condition.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for a skin rash, also claimed as secondary to Agent Orange exposure, finding that new and material evidence had not been presented.

The Board denied the veteran's application to reopen his claim for service connection for left eye aphakia, postoperative cataracts. The evidence submitted did not present new and material information.

The Board granted service connection for the veteran's inflammatory bowel disease as secondary to his service-connected PTSD, with a 10% disability rating.

The veteran's claim for an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for residuals of a right hand injury is being remanded due to the need for compliance with the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA).

The veteran's claim for a compensable disability rating for erythematous vesicular rash, based on an initial award, is being remanded due to the invalidity of certain regulations and the need for additional development including obtaining medical records.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have degenerative joint disease of the hands and denied service connection for bilateral finger and thumb pain as it is not related to active duty.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for additional development and notification under the Veterans Benefits Improvements Act of 1994.

The Board has granted the appellant's claim for an earlier effective date of February 14, 1994 for death pension benefits based on her attendance at school.

The Board found that the overpayment of improved death pension benefits was properly created due to the appellant's failure to notify VA promptly about her receipt of income from DSHS under the COPES program. The issue of waiver of recovery will be addressed in a separate remand.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an increased rating for his service-connected fracture of the left zygoma and orbital floor, currently rated at 10 percent. The evidence did not support a higher rating as the symptoms were primarily episodic sharp pain and numbness in the second division of the left cranial nerve.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for a GI disability, finding that new and material evidence had not been presented to reopen the claim. The RO has since added additional medical records to the claims file.

The Board has determined that the veteran's cardiovascular disorder, including endocarditis, thoracic aortic aneurysm, and CAD, was first manifested during military service. The Board finds it at least as likely as not that his current cardiovascular disability had its onset in service.

The Board is remanding the case for additional development and due process, including asking the veteran to provide evidence regarding events during his service.