Other conditions decisions — 2005

The Board denied the reopening of the claim for service connection for an essential tremor due to lack of new and material evidence, as well as the denial of service connection based on aggravation during active duty.

The veteran's appeal for basic eligibility to receive educational benefits under Chapter 30 of the U.S. Code was denied because he did not meet the required service obligation as per VA regulations.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for a gastric ulcer and an increased rating for urticaria, finding no evidence of these conditions during his military service or that they are related to his military service.

The Board found that VA is not required to pay per diem payments to the State of Missouri for care provided to eligible veterans in the Warrensburg Veterans Home from September 26, 2000 through August 3, 2001 because the facility did not meet VA standards under the NFPA Life Safety Code prior to August 3, 2001.

The veteran's appeal of a claim for payment or reimbursement of medical expenses has been withdrawn, and the Board dismissed the appeal.

The Board has remanded the case to the RO for further development due to procedural defects in sending notices and documents.

The Board found that the RO properly adjusted the veteran's disability compensation for the period in issue, including how the overpayment was created and calculated. The veteran's claim is denied.

The Board found no evidence of dental trauma in service and denied the veteran's claim for service connection. However, it granted eligibility for VA outpatient dental treatment due to past treatment.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for skin rash of the face, chest, neck, and thighs, as well as sleep disorder, memory loss, and difficulty with concentration. The evidence did not show objective indications of chronic disability resulting from an illness or combination of illnesses manifested by one or more signs or symptoms such as those listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.317(b).

The Board has determined that an effective date of June 12, 1994 is warranted for the grant of DIC benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1318.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for loss of teeth and a left eye disability, finding no evidence of trauma or injury to these conditions during his military service.

The Board denied the veteran's request to waive recovery of an overpayment of disability compensation in the amount of $2,460 due to fault on the part of the veteran and no fault on the part of VA. The decision also noted that recouping the overpayment has not resulted in undue hardship or defeated the purpose of the benefit.

The Board denied a higher rating for the veteran's left elbow disability, finding that the current 40 percent rating is the maximum allowed under the applicable diagnostic codes.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for her service-connected left knee conditions, finding that the evidence does not support a higher rating based on limitation of motion or instability.

The Board denied an increased rating for post-operative residuals of fractures of the left tibia and fibula with chondromalacia of the left patella, finding that the disability did not warrant a rating greater than 10 percent prior to September 17, 2003, and on and after September 17, 2003.

The Board determined that the veteran's shrapnel wound residuals did not warrant an increased disability rating for either his right wrist or right lower back, hip, and upper thigh (Muscle Group XVII) conditions.

The veteran's right shoulder disability has been rated at 20 percent since March 27, 2000. The VA found that the condition warranted this rating based on its current severity.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of a mouth injury, sought on a compensation basis, is denied as there are no compensable disabilities found.

The veteran's TDIU claim was granted effective August 6, 1999. The earlier effective date of August 6, 1999 is denied as there is no evidence that the veteran was unable to maintain substantially gainful employment due solely to his service-connected disabilities prior to this date.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claim should be remanded for additional medical development, including a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his testicular condition. The examiner is requested to address whether the veteran experienced superimposed injury during service resulting in additional disability necessitating the left orchiectomy.