Other conditions decisions — 2006

The veteran's claim for an increased evaluation of his postoperative fracture left medial malleolus, currently rated at 20 percent disabling, was denied by the RO. The VA examination showed a range of motion in the left ankle with additional loss due to pain.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been presented to reopen the claim, allowing for recognition of the appellant as the surviving spouse of the veteran for the purpose of entitlement to nonservice-connected death pension benefits. The separation from the veteran was not due to fault on the part of the appellant.

The Board has granted a 20 percent disability evaluation for the veteran's service-connected left eye impairment of vision due to a perforated retina, effective from March 2001. The claim for an increased rating is denied as there is no evidence showing that the condition warrants a higher evaluation.

The Board found that the veteran's memory problems did not manifest during his active duty service or for many years thereafter, and are not otherwise related to such service.

The veteran's varicose veins of the left leg are currently rated at 60 percent, but the Board finds that a higher rating is not warranted due to lack of evidence of board-like edema or constant pain at rest.

The Board found that the veteran's cardiovascular disease to include hypertension and coronary artery disease were not incurred in or aggravated during service, nor may they be presumed to have been so incurred due to exposure to herbicides. The preponderance of evidence is against the claim.

The Board found no evidence of active malaria and concluded that the veteran's claim for a compensable rating was not warranted.

The Board found that the veteran does not have a current diagnosis of an allergic skin disorder and thus cannot establish service connection for this condition.

The Board denied an increased evaluation for the service-connected right foot disorder, currently rated at 10 percent.

The Board has determined that the veteran's arthritis is not related to his service, and thus denied his claim for service connection.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claim for service connection for arthritis of the back was denied because the evidence did not show a causal relationship between his military service and his condition, nor did it indicate that his pre-existing condition was aggravated by his service. The decision is final.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for basic eligibility to VA pension benefits due to a lack of qualifying service in the United States Armed Forces.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for VA non-service connected pension benefits based on recognized service as a guerrilla and member of the regular Philippine Army during World War II, finding that his service did not qualify him for this benefit.

The Board has determined that the veteran's schizoaffective disorder, mixed, with depressed and manic episodes does not warrant a rating in excess of 50 percent.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for a temporary total evaluation based on convalescence following surgeries in December 2001 and April 2002, finding that the evidence did not show at least one month of convalescence or severe post-operative residuals.

The Board has determined that additional development is needed for both the cause of death and DIC claims, including obtaining medical records and divorce documents.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have impotence related to military service or a service-connected disability, and therefore denied his claims for service connection.

The Board has granted service connection for left foot hallux valgus, finding that the veteran's preexisting condition was aggravated by his active duty service. The right foot disorder is denied as there is no evidence linking it to service.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim for service connection for arthritis of multiple joints and found that it is not warranted. The TDIU rating was denied as the veteran does not meet the criteria for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to his service-connected disabilities.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to incomplete medical records and inadequate VA examination.