Other conditions decisions — 2006

The Board denied the appellant's claim for service connection for her husband's cause of death, finding that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the claim.

The Board found that the veteran's death was not caused by a service-connected disability or diabetes mellitus, and thus denied the claim for service connection for cause of death.

The Board has remanded the case for further action, including requesting records from specific medical providers and readjudicating the application to reopen the claim for service connection for the cause of the veteran's death.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete information and need for further examination. The veteran's claim is related to service connection for residuals of a left eye injury.

The Board denied the veteran's request for an earlier effective date of January 22, 2001 for the grant of service connection for urticaria. The decision was based on the fact that there was no evidence of a current disability at the time of the July 1984 denial and the RO relied on the VA examination results in denying the claim.

The Board found that the veteran's current bilateral foot disorder was not incurred during service and denied his claim for service connection.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including obtaining medical records and scheduling a VA examination to determine if the veteran's current respiratory disability is related to asbestos exposure during his service.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection of substance abuse claimed as secondary to PTSD, and denied his requests for effective dates prior to June 30, 1997 and August 9, 2001 for increased ratings of PTSD.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for payment of unauthorized medical expenses incurred at a private hospital from July 15, 2002 to July 19, 2002 due to lack of evidence that the treatment was necessary and safe.

The veteran's left eye disability was granted service connection, and he received a 40% rating for his cervical spine injury with spondylosis. The other claims were either denied or did not meet the criteria for increased ratings.

The Board denied the veteran's request for waiver of recovery of an overpayment of VA pension benefits in the amount of $11,665 due to his fault in creating the debt. The decision stated that recovery would not be against the principles of equity and good conscience.

The Board dismissed the appeal because the appellant did not file a timely notice of disagreement within 60 days following the October 1999 determination, which granted her apportionment benefits.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for basal cell carcinoma, finding that it is not due to his military service or presumed exposure to herbicides (Agent Orange).

The Board found that the veteran does not currently have an ongoing cardiovascular disorder manifested by sinus arrhythmia and denied his claim for service connection.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim and found new and material evidence, but the case is being remanded for additional development to obtain relevant medical records.

The veteran does not have chronic prostatitis and the claim for service connection is denied.

The Board has determined that the veteran's left knee disability, including his multiple surgeries and arthritis, warrants a combined rating of 30 percent.

The Board denied the appellant's claim as her income exceeded the maximum allowable for improved death pension benefits, despite her financial difficulties.

The veteran's respiratory disorder, including as due to an undiagnosed illness, was granted service connection. His claim for fatigue, also related to an undiagnosed illness, was denied. The initial noncompensable disability rating for his chronic left ankle sprain was increased to 10 percent effective May 5, 2005.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for an apportionment of the veteran's VA compensation benefits on behalf of his minor children, PL and SL, finding that the veteran reasonably provides support for such minor children.