Other conditions decisions — 2004

The Board found no evidence that the veteran's myopic astigmatism or residuals of flash burns were incurred in or aggravated by active military service.

The Board found no evidence of a hearing loss condition related to service and denied the veteran's claim for service connection.

The Board denied restoration of service connection for polymyositis, but the Court granted a remand due to VA's failure to provide proper notice. The case is now ready for appellate review based on the new information provided.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including verification of service dates and exposure to asbestos, as well as additional VA examinations to determine the nature and etiology of any lung disability and colorectal cancer.

The Board has remanded the case to the RO for additional development, including obtaining missing SSA records and providing VCAA compliant notice.

The veteran's claim for service connection for a bilateral foot disorder, claimed as pes cavus, was previously denied in 1950 and again in 1951. New evidence submitted since the last denial does not bear directly upon the issue of service connection.

The Board denied service connection for the veteran's claimed residuals of an injury to her right foot, finding that there was no evidence of such a condition in service or within one year after discharge. The Board also found that the current disability is not related to any incident during active duty.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining medical opinions and evidence to determine if service connection should be granted for alopecia areata and syncopal episodes.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for additional development, including obtaining medical records and possibly a VA examination.

The Board found that the veteran demonstrated bad faith in connection with the creation of a pension overpayment, and therefore precluded consideration of a waiver.

The veteran is seeking an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for prurigo nodular. The case has been remanded to the RO for further development and adjudication.

The veteran's service-connected L4-5 laminectomy and discectomy residuals are currently rated at 40 percent, which is the maximum schedular rating available. The Board found that his disability does not warrant a higher rating based on more severe symptoms or functional loss.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has not been submitted to reopen the claims of service connection for residuals of a scrap metal wound to the left foot and disability claimed as phunoma. The claim for residuals of a scrap metal wound to the left foot is denied due to lack of in-service injury or symptomatology, while the claim for disability claimed as phunoma remains denied based on the absence of evidence linking it to service.

The Board denied the appellant's request for an earlier effective date of November 28, 2001 for dependency and indemnity compensation benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1318 due to lack of clear and unmistakable error in prior decisions.

The veteran's initial evaluation for TMJ dysfunction was increased from noncompensable to 30 percent effective July 20, 1993.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to a failure to provide proper VCAA notice.

The Board denied service connection for trigeminal neuralgia and remanded the issues of earlier effective date for geniculate neuralgia and a separate initial compensable evaluation for geniculate neuralgia.

The Board denied service connection for cause of death due to a lack of evidence linking the veteran's peptic ulcer and pneumonia to his military service. The causes of death were listed as bleeding peptic ulcer and pneumonia, but there is no competent medical evidence showing these conditions were incurred or aggravated by service.

The VA denied an increased evaluation for the veteran's residuals of resection of ileum and descending colon, currently rated as 10 percent disabling.

The Board found that the veteran did not have an eye disability during active service and the competent evidence does not establish a nexus between any current medical findings and active service. Therefore, vision loss was not incurred in or aggravated by active service.