Other conditions decisions — 2006

The veteran's claims for muscle/joint pain, memory loss, and fatigue are being remanded to the RO for further evaluation due to unclear medical evidence regarding these symptoms.

The Board found that the veteran's uncontrollable shaking of both hands is not likely due to service-connected manganese poisoning, and denied his claims for service connection and TDIU.

The Board finds that the veteran does not have current disability due to malaria, including light sensitivity. Therefore, service connection for these conditions is denied.

The veteran's service, as described above, may be sufficient for certain VA purposes (such as compensation), but not for the requested benefit of non-service-connected death pension benefits.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining medical records and conducting a VA aid and attendance examination. The appellant's claim will be reconsidered after these actions.

The Board has determined that the veteran's death was not caused by any condition related to his service, and thus denied the claim for service connection for the cause of the veteran's death.

The Board has determined that the veteran's former attorney was entitled to payment of attorney fees from past-due benefits, and 20 percent of those past-due benefits have been withheld for this purpose.

The Board has determined that the veteran's impotence and urinary dribbling resulted from VA treatment with lisinopril in May 1992, which caused a current disability. The claim is granted.

The Board found that the veteran's hiatal hernia and duodenitis were not incurred in or aggravated by active service, proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury, or due to an undiagnosed illness. The same was true for his degenerative joint disease of the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine and numbness and tingling in the hands and feet.

The Board found that the appellant's conviction of voluntary manslaughter essentially found her guilty of intentionally violating the veteran's right to live, which means she is not entitled to receive DIC benefits under VA regulations.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including a VA psychiatric examination and correction of VCAA notice. The veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD is on appeal.

The Board has granted a 10 percent evaluation for the veteran's service-connected loss of pigment of the left forearm, finding that it more nearly approximates this level of disability under the old rating criteria. The current noncompensable evaluation is not warranted.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for an apportionment of the veteran's VA compensation benefits on behalf of his minor child, DD, finding that the veteran reasonably provides support and that the appellant did not show financial hardship.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have a chronic respiratory disorder and finds no evidence to support service connection for such condition.

The veteran's left arm disability was not incurred in or aggravated by active service.,An effective date prior to November 29, 2000 for the assignment of a 40 percent evaluation for his right shoulder disability is denied.

The Board has determined that additional development is needed in order to properly adjudicate the appellant's claims, including providing proper VCAA notice and obtaining a VA examination.

The Board has determined that additional development is necessary to determine if the veteran's exposure during service contributed to his death from Acute Myelogenous Leukemia.

The October 1968 rating decision is denied as the veteran's claim for a higher disability rating does not meet the criteria established by VA regulations. The evidence does not support an award of a higher than 30 percent disability rating.

The Board has determined that the veteran's service-connected postoperative duodenal ulcer, right pterygium, and left spermatocele do not warrant evaluations in excess of their current ratings.

The Board found that the veteran's left nephrectomy is not associated with his active service and denied the claim for service connection.