Other conditions decisions — 2007

The Board has determined that the veteran's Horton's syndrome warrants an initial rating of 30 percent, effective from the earliest possible date.

The Board has determined that there is no competent medical evidence linking the veteran's right ear ulcer to his service, including any exposure to herbicides. As a result, the claim for service connection for a right ear ulcer, claimed as secondary to exposure to herbicide, is denied.

The veteran's claim for an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for back pain was denied as her condition did not meet the criteria for a higher rating.

The Board found no evidence linking the veteran's current blocked nasal lacrimal duct to his military service, and denied his claim for service connection.

The Board has determined that the veteran's right hip disability did not meet the criteria for a 30 percent evaluation prior to May 19, 1997. Therefore, an earlier effective date is denied.

The Board found no additional current disability resulting from VA treatment and denied the claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151.

The Board has ordered additional development due to the need for a VA examination and opinion regarding the veteran's eye disorder, including refractive error, blepharospasm, and burn injury residuals to the eyelids and eyebrows. The case is being remanded for these purposes.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for a rating in excess of 20 percent for his right hand little finger disorder, finding that the condition is analogous to an amputation with metacarpal resection and warranting only a 20% disability rating.

The Board has remanded the case for further development due to missing VA treatment records and a need for a VA cardiology examination.

The VA denied the veteran's claim for an initial compensable rating for his service-connected post-operative ventral hernia, finding that his disability did not meet the criteria for a higher evaluation.

The Board has denied the veteran's claim for service connection for mitochondrial myopathy, finding that there is no competent medical evidence linking the condition to his period of active military service.

The Board denied service connection for a left great toe injury and residuals of a foot fungus due to lack of evidence linking the current conditions to service.

The Board has denied the veteran's claim for secondary service connection for macular degeneration, finding that there is no competent evidence of record that the condition is proximately due to or the result of his service-connected bilateral aphakia.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection due to a lack of new and material evidence, as well as the findings that the disabilities were incurred due to willful misconduct not in the line of duty.

The Board has determined that the veteran's right inguinal hernia residuals do not meet the criteria for a compensable disability rating, as there is no evidence of recurrent or postoperative right inguinal hernia.

The veteran is seeking service connection for a pulmonary disability due to asbestos exposure. The case has been remanded as there are conflicting medical opinions regarding the cause of the veteran's condition.

The Board found that the veteran's service-connected cold injury residuals did not result in permanent loss of use of a foot or both feet, and thus denied his claim for automobile or adaptive equipment or for adaptive equipment only.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been received to reopen the veteran's claim for service connection of a schizoaffective disorder. The case is remanded for further development, including obtaining medical records and providing the veteran with a VA examination.

The veteran's appeal for Dependents' Educational Assistance under Chapter 35, Title 38, United States Code, retroactive to March 4, 2000 is denied as the criteria are not met.

The Board finds that the veteran's glioblastoma multiforme is not due to disease or injury incurred in service, but rather a direct result of his military service. The exposure basis for this decision was deemed insufficient by the VA experts.