Other conditions decisions — 2004

The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to a report of treatment in 1946 at Veterans Memorial Hospital in Manila.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for scheduling a video conference personal hearing before a Veterans Law Judge.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for an apportionment of the veteran's VA disability compensation benefits on behalf of their minor child, finding that the veteran reasonably discharges his responsibility for the support of the child and that hardship has not been shown to exist.

The appellant's claim for recognition as the veteran's surviving child for VA death benefits was denied due to not meeting the legal criteria for such status.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has not been received to reopen the veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for right foot bullet wound residuals, as the submitted evidence does not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim.

The Board has granted service connection for the veteran's right ear disability, finding that his current condition is consistent with an injury sustained during service. Service connection was denied for a left ear disability due to lack of evidence supporting the claim.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient information in the veteran's claims folder, including lack of details on his active military service and the effective date of a disability rating increase. The appeal is also related to whether the veteran should be charged co-payments for VA medication.

The Board has dismissed the appeal due to the death of the veteran, as veterans' claims do not survive their deaths.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been received to reopen the appellant's claim of being the veteran's surviving spouse. The appellant is recognized as the veteran's surviving spouse for purposes of eligibility for VA benefits.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including a new VA examination to evaluate the nature and extent of the veteran's claimed psychiatric disability as well as to provide an opinion about its etiology.

The Board has remanded the case due to procedural deficiencies in VCAA notice and other legal requirements.

The Board found no CUE in the March 1972 rating decision that assigned a noncompensable rating for residuals of shell fragment wounds, as the decision was not clearly and unmistakably erroneous.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for a growth on the ball of the left foot and an involuntary tremor disorder, finding that there was no evidence linking these conditions to his military service.

The veteran's sole service-connected disability, bilateral trench foot, was rated at noncompensable (0%) from October 1945. The Board found that the veteran did not meet the criteria for DIC benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1318 as he did not have a total disability rating for 10 years prior to his death or would not have met such requirements but for clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in previous decisions.

The Board found that the overpayment of educational assistance benefits in the amount of $1,864.32 was properly created and denied the veteran's appeal.

The veteran's service-connected depressive reaction has been rated at 70 percent, the highest schedular rating available.

The veteran is seeking compensation under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for recurrent urinary and vaginal problems, but the appeal has not been fully developed due to a lack of VCAA-compliant notice.

The Board found that the veteran's claimed bilateral eye disability was not incurred in or aggravated by active service and denied his claims.

The Board has determined that the appellant's current cutaneous T-cell lymphoma was incurred during his military service and granted entitlement to service connection for this condition.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for a disability of the testicles claimed as hernia of the testicles. The veteran's previous denial was based on an acute condition that resolved before separation from military service, but the additional evidence received since then supports reopening the claim.