Other conditions decisions — 2007

The Board has remanded the case for further development and consideration, including initial review of additional evidence submitted by the appellant.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete development and need for a VA examination.

The Board has determined that the veteran's lung disorder did not begin during service and is not related to any in-service asbestos exposure. The claim for right side facial nerve dysfunction with hemifacial spasm was also denied.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence was not presented to reopen the claim regarding the character of the appellant's discharge from service. The RO's previous determination denying this claim is considered final.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for rectum cancer with residuals and prostate condition, finding no evidence of a current disability or in-service incurrence/aggravation.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have current residuals of cold injury to the hands and feet, and thus service connection is denied.

The Board found that the veteran's myelodysplastic syndrome was not shown during service or for years thereafter, and is not presumed to be related to inservice exposure to herbicides. The weight of medical evidence is against finding that the veteran's myelodysplastic syndrome has been otherwise related to any aspect of his period of service.

The Board denied the appellant's claim to establish basic eligibility for VA benefits as new and material evidence had not been received, thus the appeal is denied.

The veteran's appeal is remanded due to the need for additional medical records and examination. The case will be reconsidered based on the new evidence.

The Board denied service connection for paresthesia of the right hand, finding that it was more likely due to carpal tunnel syndrome rather than service-connected cervical spine disorder.

The Board determined that the veteran's brain tumor was not incurred in or aggravated by service and may not be presumed to have been aggravated therein.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for higher evaluations for his service-connected cervical spine disability and headaches, finding that the evidence did not support a rating in excess of 40 percent for the cervical spine disability or any compensable evaluation for headaches.

The veteran's service-connected residuals of a fractured jaw and injury to the cheekbone, with severely compromised left mandible and TMJ dysfunction, are currently rated at 20 percent from November 7, 2000, to October 16, 2003, and 30 percent thereafter. The veteran's service-connected residuals of a fractured nose do not meet the criteria for a compensable rating.,The Board denied increased ratings for both conditions.

The Board denied service connection for a bladder disorder and impotence, finding that the veteran's current conditions are not due to his active service. The Board also denied increased ratings for post-traumatic arthrosis of the left ankle and scars from shell fragment wounds, as well as a compensable rating for circumcision scars.

The Board has reopened the claim of entitlement to service connection for arthritis, but denied a rating in excess of 10 percent for chronic maxillary sinusitis.

The veteran's claim for an effective date prior to November 15, 1991 for the grant of service connection for nephrotic syndrome is granted. The RO also granted SMC and specially adapted housing assistance or a special home adaptation grant based on her service-connected conditions.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining VA medical records and scheduling a VA psychiatric examination. The appellant's claim for an increased disability rating for his dysthymic disorder with hysterical features is pending.

The veteran's VA surgeries in July 1992 and April 1993 led to penile and scrotal nerve damage, occasional scrotal pain, left scrotal, testicular, and cord tenderness, and atrophy of the left testicle. The Board finds that these conditions are related to his service-connected left knee disability.

The veteran's right foot disability has resulted in some limitation of motion, the need for a shoe appliance, and complaints of pain. However, it does not present an exceptional or unusual disability picture that would render impractical the application of the regular schedular standards.

The VA denied compensation benefits for left foot drop resulting from the veteran's back surgeries, finding that no additional disability was caused by carelessness or negligence.