Other conditions decisions — 2006

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have a current disability of the spine and there is no evidence linking any in-service injury or disease to his current symptoms. Therefore, service connection for a spinal disability is denied.

The veteran is seeking a higher disability rating for his service-connected residuals of an old healed skull fracture, and the Board has determined that further development is needed before this claim can be decided.

The veteran's appeal has been dismissed due to his death.

The veteran is seeking an increased rating for his service-connected residuals of a fracture of the left clavicle, currently rated as 20 percent disabling. The case is REMANDED due to need for additional development and proper notice.

The Board has determined that the veteran's residuals of bilateral ovarian cystectomies are well-controlled with continuous treatment and medication, warranting a 10 percent evaluation. The claim for higher ratings is denied.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim for service connection, but the claim itself is denied as there is no competent medical evidence linking the current back injury with bilateral leg pain to service.

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

The veteran seeks service connection for constant fatigue, claiming it is due to an undiagnosed illness from his service in the Persian Gulf War. The Board has decided that a medical examination should be conducted to determine if the cause of the fatigue is an undiagnosed illness.

The Board finds that the veteran's service-connected gastrointestinal problems did not cause his death, and that his death was due to chronic alcoholism. As direct service connection for a disability resulting from abuse of alcohol is precluded after October 31, 2000, the claim for service connection for the cause of the veteran's death is denied.

The appeal seeking a TDIU rating has been dismissed as the claim was granted by the RO in April 2003, and the veteran's representative withdrew the appeal as moot.

The Board has determined that the veteran requires regular aid and assistance of another person due to his service-connected disabilities, which have resulted in significant physical impairment. As a result, the veteran is granted special monthly compensation based on need for aid and attendance.

The veteran's appeal for non-service-connected pension benefits was denied because he did not meet the threshold eligibility requirements due to his service not meeting the definition of wartime service.

The Board finds that the evidence is in relative equipoise as to whether residuals of Bell's Palsy were incurred during active service, and grants service connection for these residuals.

The veteran's apportionment of his VA compensation benefits on behalf of his minor child has been terminated due to the veteran reasonably discharging his responsibility for the child's support and no undue hardship caused by the apportionment.

The Board denied the veteran's petition to reopen his claim for service connection for porphyria cutanea tarda as due to herbicide exposure, finding that no new and material evidence had been received.

The appellant is not entitled to recognition as the surviving spouse of the veteran for VA death benefits due to her marriage occurring less than one year prior to his death and no children being born during their union.

The veteran died without any pending claims for accrued benefits at the time of his death, and thus the appellant's claim is denied.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an effective date earlier than July 12, 2000 for an award of special monthly compensation on account of the loss of use of a creative organ. The decision is based on the fact that no legal benefit can be awarded due to the lack of entitlement under the law.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for reopening his service connection for injury, left hand, palm due to lack of new and material evidence.

The Board has ordered the VA to review the validity of the overpayment and determine if it was created due to fraud, misrepresentation or bad faith. The case is then to be reconsidered under the principles of equity and good conscience.