Other conditions decisions — 2007

The Board has remanded the case for further review by the service department to re-certify the appellant's service dates, as there is now sufficient basis to warrant such action.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete development and the need for further evidence, including verification of an in-service stressor.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including obtaining a revised dose estimate from DTRA and determining whether there is sound scientific evidence supporting the conclusion that the veteran's schwannoma resulted from exposure to ionizing radiation during active service.

The Board has denied the veteran's claim of service connection for bilateral hammertoes, finding that new and material evidence was not submitted to reopen the previously denied claim.

The veteran does not have a current diagnosis of soft tissue sarcoma of the left hip and there is no evidence linking this condition to service. The Board denies service connection for this claim.

The claim for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by the veteran in 1998 is denied as there was no service-connected disability, and VA does not have legal authority to provide such reimbursement.

The Board finds that the right upper lobe lobectomy did not cause an additional disability, and thus compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 is denied.

The veteran's service-connected disabilities meet the schedular requirements for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability, but his medical evidence does not show that he is unable to pursue substantially gainful employment due to these conditions. The Board concludes that a total disability rating for compensation purposes based on individual unemployability is not warranted.

The Board found that the preponderance of evidence is against a causal relationship between the veteran's right orchiectomy and any injury or disease in service, thus denying service connection for residuals of a right orchiectomy.

The VA has determined that the veteran's service-connected residuals of a gunshot wound to the right forearm, Muscle Group VII, fractured ulna do not meet the criteria for a higher disability rating.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the etiology of the veteran's current back disorder and a need for further examination.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence was received to reopen the veteran's claim for service connection for dysentery resulting in ileostomy. The Board also found that the veteran's ulcerative colitis, which resulted from his service-connected dysentery, required a colectomy with ileostomy.

The Board found no current residuals of injuries to the lower extremities due to an automobile accident in service, and thus denied the veteran's claim for service connection.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been received to reopen the veteran's claim of service connection for post-operative residuals of in-service maxillary osteotomy corrective surgery. The Board also found that these residuals are directly related to the veteran's in-service surgery, resulting in chronic pain and nerve damage.

The Board has determined that the veteran's post-thoracotomy pain syndrome is service-connected as it resulted from a schwannoma that was removed during military service.

The RO has granted service connection for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, dumping syndrome, and status-post splenectomy. The effective dates are set at May 31, 2002.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to incomplete records and further action is required before deciding the claims.

The veteran's status post oat cell cancer of the T-12 pedicle, in clinical remission, results in residual disability affecting the thoracolumbar spine with slight limitation of motion and x-ray evidence of degenerative changes. The current rating for this condition is 10 percent.

The Board found that the veteran's occlusion of the left popliteal artery was not incurred in service and denied his claim.

The veteran's claim for automobile and adaptive equipment or adaptive equipment only has been remanded due to the need for additional development of his case.