Other conditions decisions — 2005

The Board denied the appellant's claim for recognition as the veteran's surviving spouse, finding that she was legally divorced from the veteran and did not form a common-law marriage after their divorce. The criteria for recognizing her as such were therefore not met.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an effective date prior to March 26, 1993, for the award of special monthly compensation (SMC) at the (r)(1) rate. The case was remanded due to VCAA compliance issues and additional evidence.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an increased evaluation for epilepsy and his attempt to reopen a previously denied service connection claim. The decision is final.

The Board has denied the veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for a left leg disability, finding that there is no competent evidence showing he currently has such a condition or that it is related to his military service.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have a current right foot and heel disorder, atherosclerosis, skin disorder, lipomas and tumors, anal disorder, or stomach disorder that is etiologically related to service. As such, these claims are denied.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for various conditions, including a urinary tract disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, an acquired psychiatric disorder (other than PTSD), low back disability, right knee disability, left foot disability, and hiatal hernia with reflux gastritis.

The Board dismissed the motion alleging clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in an August 1976 decision of the Board regarding ratings assigned for service-connected eye disorders. The moving party withdrew his CUE motion.

The Board has determined that the veteran's malaria is not related to his active military service and therefore denied his claim for service connection.

The veteran's cold injury residuals of the right and left feet are currently rated at 30 percent each, with no compensable ratings for other conditions. The increased rating claims have been granted.

The Board has granted increased evaluations of 30 percent for the veteran's service-connected residuals of a gunshot wound of the left foot with healed fracture of the os calcis and 20 percent for his service-connected residuals of a left femur fracture.

The claim for DIC benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1318 is dismissed as moot due to the grant of service connection for the cause of the veteran's death.

The Board has remanded the case for further development due to missing service medical records and verification of service periods.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have residuals of a right eye injury related to service and therefore denied his claim for service connection.

The Board has determined that the appellant's annual income exceeds the maximum amount set by law for VA death pension benefits, and therefore, she is not entitled to these benefits.

The Board found that the evidence submitted since the last final denial does not constitute new and material evidence to reopen the claim of service connection for a right lower extremity disorder.

The veteran's appeal is remanded due to the need for a new VA examination and additional development of his claims.

The Board has determined that the veteran's gunshot wound residuals do not warrant a higher evaluation, and thus denied his claims for increased ratings. The claim to reopen service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder was also denied.

The veteran's request for waiver of recovery of overpayment in the amount of $174.00 is granted due to VA's fault in creating the overpayment and the resulting undue financial hardship on the veteran.

The veteran's claim for service connection of his left knee disability, claimed as secondary to the right knee disability, is being remanded due to the submission of new evidence. The RO will review the additional evidence and determine if further development or an orthopedic examination is necessary.

The veteran's claim for nonservice-connected disability pension was denied as his income exceeded the established limit.