Other conditions decisions — 2004

The Board has remanded the case due to a need for additional notification and development of evidence, including whether the March 1972 application can form a basis for an earlier effective date for service connection for prostatitis.

The Board has remanded the case due to failure to properly notify the veteran of the new and material evidence standard, and to address the implications of the receipt of a VA Form 9 in August 1962.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for waiver of recovery of overpayment due to his willful misrepresentation of material facts, finding that he was on notice of receiving additional benefits and continued to deny employment despite evidence showing his employability.

The Board has denied the veteran's request for reimbursement or payment by VA of unauthorized private medical treatment received from March 7 to 9, 2001. The appeal is based on a direct service connection theory and does not involve any issues related to exposure to burn pits, Agent Orange, Camp Lejeune, radiation, Gulf War Syndrome, or the PACT Act.

The Board found that there is no evidence of current residuals of meningoencephalitis and the veteran's lung disorder was not related to his period of active duty service, including tobacco use during service. Therefore, service connection for both conditions was denied.

The Board denied the claim for basic eligibility for VA benefits, finding that new and material evidence had not been submitted since the October 2000 decision.

The VA has determined that the veteran's schizoaffective disorder does not warrant a rating in excess of 50 percent, as his symptoms do not meet the criteria for total occupational and social impairment.

The Board has determined that the veteran's postoperative residuals, ventral hernia warrant a rating of 20 percent, effective as of the date of this decision.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence was not submitted to reopen the claim of service connection for spots on the lungs due to asbestos exposure. The veteran's claims regarding a left elbow shrapnel wound, lip shrapnel wounds, and PTSD were all addressed, with some issues being granted and others denied or dismissed.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for a dental disorder for compensation purposes, finding that there was no evidence of trauma or other conditions during service.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date of November 20, 1998 for a TDIU rating as there was no evidence that his service-connected disability prevented him from working within one year prior to the November 20, 1998 claim.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for payment of Death and Indemnity Compensation benefits as she was not considered a surviving spouse due to her separation from the veteran prior to his death, which was deemed by the Board to be due to her own fault.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date of July 20, 1999 for the grant of service connection for a bunion deformity of the right foot. The decision found that no new and material evidence had been submitted to reopen his previously denied claims.

The veteran's appeal was dismissed because he died during the pendency of his appeal.

The veteran's claim for non-service-connected pension and aid-and-attendance benefits was denied because the RO found that he did not submit necessary evidence within one year, leading to his June 1978 application being considered abandoned. The veteran submitted a new claim in July 1997, but an effective date prior to July 14, 1997 could not be granted due to lack of timely submission of required information.

The Board found that the veteran's residuals of a left radical orchiectomy for testicular cancer warranted a 10 percent evaluation since service connection was granted.

The Board denied the appellant's claim, finding that he does not have qualifying military service to establish eligibility for VA benefits.

The Board denied the appellant's request to reopen his claim for VA benefits due to lack of new and material evidence, as all submitted documents were not accepted by VA as proof of qualifying service.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for VA death benefits due to a lack of timely filing of a substantive appeal beyond the statutory time limits.

The Board has determined that the veteran's skin condition may be due to exposure to ionizing radiation during service, and thus requires further examination and development of evidence. The claim is being remanded for these purposes.