Other conditions decisions — 2007

The Board denied the claim for an effective date prior to September 28, 2005 for additional DIC benefits based on the need for aid and attendance.

The veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for a 60 percent rating for HSP-related skin manifestations was denied as the evidence did not show compensable manifestations of the condition until February 2006.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral optic atrophy and remanded the issue of compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for hepatitis C infection.

The veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses incurred from August 8, 2003 to August 11, 2003 was denied by the VA Medical Center in North Little,/them. The denial was based on the argument that VA facilities were feasibly available and the veteran was stable at the time of transfer.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the veteran's claim for basic eligibility for nonservice connected pension benefits.

The VA denied the veteran's claim for an increased evaluation of his service-connected idiopathic hypertrophic cardiomyopathy/ subaortic stenosis (IHSS), currently rated at 30 percent.

The case is being remanded for further development and re-adjudication due to unclear eligibility criteria and the need for additional evidence regarding the amount of nursing home expenses incurred.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for further development to clarify his exposure history and address the conflicting evidence submitted in December 2006. The RO will obtain an expert opinion on dose estimates, comply with VCAA requirements, and then review the expanded record.

The Board has granted a 30 percent disability rating for the veteran's service-connected membranous nephritis effective April 1, 2002. The veteran is not entitled to an increased rating.

The Board has determined that the overpayment of VA pension benefits was improperly created and calculated, leading to its denial.

The Board has granted an apportionment of the veteran's VA compensation benefits in the amount paid to him as dependency allowance for the appellant, effective from the date of separation until March 2, 2005.

The veteran's active duty was less than 90 days, and he did not have a service-connected disability at the time of his death. Therefore, he does not meet the criteria for basic eligibility for nonservice-connected death pension benefits.

The Board found no evidence of peptic ulcer disease in service and denied the claim for service connection.

The Board has determined that the veteran's atherosclerosis, which contributed to his death, was not incurred in service and did not manifest within one year of discharge. Therefore, the claim for service connection for cause of death is denied.

The veteran is seeking service connection for a disability of the feet, claimed as degenerative joint disease. The appeal will be remanded to verify his reserve service and obtain any relevant medical records.

The veteran's claim for VA disability compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 was denied because the evidence did not show that his claimed disabilities were proximately caused by VA hospital care in February and March 1985.

The Board has decided to remand the case for additional development, including providing proper notice and obtaining VA medical records from specific facilities. The veteran's claim of service connection for a skin rash will be reconsidered based on this new information.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including obtaining medical records and scheduling a VA cardiology examination to determine if the veteran's current cardiac arrhythmia is related to service or his service-connected PTSD.

The veteran does not have a currently diagnosed bilateral eye disorder that is related to his military service. His claim for service connection for a bilateral eye disorder is denied.

The veteran's claims for increased ratings for residuals of a right forearm laceration and a right thumb chip fracture were denied as there is no medical evidence showing any limitation of motion or other orthopedic impairment.