Other conditions decisions — 2005

The Board found that the veteran's claimed gum infection and related jaw bone and dental disabilities did not originate in service, thus denying his claim for service connection.

The VA reduced the veteran's rating for Hodgkin's disease from 100% to noncompensable effective October 1, 2001, as his condition had improved and was in remission.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including obtaining medical records and conducting examinations to determine if the veteran's memory loss and speech disability are related to his service-connected pituitary tumors. The decision on whether these claims are granted will be determined after this additional evidence is considered.

The veteran's low back disability, characterized by severe intervertebral disc syndrome with severe limitation of motion and intermittent relief from recurrent attacks, more nearly approximates the criteria for a 40 percent disability rating.

The veteran's claim for service connection for defective vision of the right eye was denied in January 1962. The RO did not find clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in this decision, and therefore an earlier effective date is not warranted.

The veteran's eligibility for vocational rehabilitation benefits under Chapter 31, Title 38, United States Code was granted by the Honolulu RO in June 2005.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for genitourinary disorder, sexual dysfunction, and psychiatric disorder due to a lack of evidence linking these conditions to his military service.

The veteran is not shown to have a pulmonary disability manifested by histoplasmosis due to undiagnosed illness or other disease or injury that was incurred in or aggravated by active service.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has not been submitted to reopen the veteran's previously denied claim of service connection for a lung disorder, resulting in a denial.

The VA has determined that the veteran's dysthymia warrants a 70 percent evaluation, which is higher than his current 50 percent rating.

The Board has determined that a VA examination is necessary to determine the nature and etiology of the veteran's left eye conditions, including whether any are related to service-connected chorioretinitis. The claim will be remanded for further development.

The veteran claims service connection for inclusion body myositis, which he alleges is related to exposure to chemicals during his active duty. The Board has ordered further development of the claim, including seeking information from the Army Medical Research and Materiel Command.

The Board has determined that the veteran's chronic diplopia is service-connected, as it was initially manifested during military service and is not a usual effect of his inservice eye surgeries.

The veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of a healed stress fracture of the right femoral neck is granted. Her appeal for an initial compensable evaluation for her third left metatarsal fracture was withdrawn prior to decision.

The Board has determined that the veteran's right eye cataract, status post intra-ocular lens implant, did not result from negligence or fault on the part of VA treatment providers. Therefore, his claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 is denied.

The Board found no evidence of a current disability related to service and denied the veteran's claim for bilateral heel disorders.

The Board has denied the veteran's application to reopen her claim for service connection for bilateral brachymetatarsalgia, finding that no new and material evidence was submitted.

The veteran's service connection claim for cold injury to the hands and nose is granted. Service connection for frostbite residuals of the lower extremities is also granted, with a noncompensable evaluation.

The appellant's service with the Polish Home Army does not qualify him for VA compensation or pension benefits as he did not serve in the United States Armed Forces.

The Board has jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim of entitlement to nonservice-connected death pension benefits. However, a remand is required due to an error in notice that informed the appellant about what information and evidence not of record is necessary to substantiate her claim.