Other conditions decisions — 2006

The veteran seeks service connection for myasthenia gravis, which he claims developed during his active duty. The RO denied the claim in March 2004, finding that the condition did not develop during service and was not permanently aggravated by service. The case is being remanded to allow for further development of the record.

The Board denied an earlier effective date for the grant of accrued benefits due to the liberalizing law that became effective on January 1, 2002. The veteran's lung carcinoma and metastatic brain carcinoma were granted service connection on this basis.

The veteran's income exceeded the maximum allowable pension rate for non-service-connected improved pension benefits, and his claim was denied.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development and disposition consistent with the Joint Motion, which includes obtaining missing VA treatment records and scheduling a heart disorders examination.

The Board found that the veteran's impotence, incontinence, and chronic urinary tract infection were not proximately caused by VA carelessness, negligence, or error. The events were reasonably foreseeable.

The veteran is seeking compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for the loss of buttock muscles and increased bowel dysfunction secondary to VA treatment for a decubitus ulcer. The Board has remanded the case due to the need for another hearing before a Veterans Law Judge at the RO.

The Board found no evidence linking the veteran's gastrointestinal disability, including hiatal hernia, reflux, and esophagitis, or bilateral inguinal hernias to service. The preponderance of the evidence does not support a grant of service connection for these conditions.

The Board has determined that additional development is needed before the service connection for cause of death issue can be decided. The appellant and her representative will need to provide any further information regarding this claim, including any evidence in their possession.

The Board has determined that the veteran's arthritis of the mid-dorsal spine is presumed to have been incurred in or aggravated by active military service.

The veteran's request for a Travel Board hearing has been scheduled, and the case is being remanded to allow this hearing.

The Board has determined that the veteran's current heart condition, including cardiomyopathy, left atrial enlargement, and bradycardia, did not manifest within one year of discharge from service and is not related to service or any aspect thereof. Therefore, service connection for a heart disability is denied.

The Board has determined that the veteran's basal cell carcinoma is not related to service and denied his claim for service connection.

The veteran's service-connected residuals of left true vocal cord carcinoma are manifested by hoarseness, an inability to talk for extended periods, and dryness of the throat. The Board finds that a disability evaluation in excess of 10 percent is not warranted.

The Board has determined that the veteran's dental disorder and excision of third molars are not service-connected, but grants her eligibility for VA outpatient dental treatment on a one-time basis.

The Board has determined that the veteran's loss of tooth number 9 during service due to in-service trauma qualifies for VA outpatient dental treatment.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) has determined that the forfeiture decision in March 1976 was proper, and thus the appellant is not entitled to Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC), death pension, or accrued benefits.

The Board has granted a 20 percent evaluation for the veteran's service-connected residuals of a left leg fasciotomy, which is more than the initial 10 percent rating. The disability picture does not meet criteria warranting a higher evaluation.

The veteran's impairment of rectal and anal sphincter control is manifested by a complete loss of sphincter control, warranting an increased rating to 100 percent.

The Board has remanded the case for further investigation regarding payment of funeral expenses and consideration of additional evidence.

The Board denied the appellant's request for an extension of her period of eligibility for Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits under Chapter 35, Title 38, United States Code because she was over the age of 31 at the time of her claim and her eligibility period had expired.