Other conditions decisions — 2007

The Board found that the January 1953 rating decision, which assigned a 10 percent evaluation for shell fragment wound residuals of the left thigh, was not the result of clear and unmistakable error (CUE). The veteran's claim seeking to overturn this decision is denied.

The case is being remanded for a videoconference hearing at the RO, as requested by the appellant.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an initial compensable evaluation for service-connected interstitial fibrosis, finding that the evidence did not support such a rating.

The Board dismissed the appeal due to the death of the appellant, and thus no jurisdiction remains for adjudicating the merits of these claims.

The Board has remanded the case for further development due to a failure to obtain all records associated with the veteran's claim for Social Security Administration (SSA) benefits.

The Board denied the veteran's claim of service connection for squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx, finding no evidence of a connection to his military service and rejecting any presumption based on herbicide exposure.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for shell fragment wound residuals of Muscle Group XI injury, left lower extremity and right wrist and hand with ulnar neuropathy.

The veteran's service-connected endometriosis was rated as noncompensably disabling for the period prior to May 3, 2005. For the period beginning on May 3, 2005, it was rated as 10 percent disabling.

The veteran's service-connected varicose veins and recurrent thrombophlebitis of the lower extremities are currently evaluated as 40 percent disabling. The Board finds that these conditions do not warrant a higher rating based on persistent ulceration or board-like edema.

The Board has determined that the veteran's bruxism warranted a noncompensable rating from October 2000 to September 2005, and a 10% rating since October 2005. The decision is mixed as some issues were granted (noncompensable rating) while others remain in dispute (rating in excess of 10%).

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including obtaining medical records and scheduling a VA examination to determine if the veteran's lung disorder is related to military service.

The Board denied the claim of service connection for esophageal adenocarcinoma, finding that it was not caused by or related to service, including exposure to Agent Orange. The veteran's death from esophageal cancer was also ruled out as a result of his service-connected malaria.

The Board found that the appellant did not meet the basic eligibility requirements for service-connected disability compensation benefits due to a motor vehicle accident on July [redacted], 1973, as there were no records demonstrating his service status at that time and he does not have any current disabilities related to the incident.

The Board has determined that the veteran's current cervical spine disability, including discogenic disease and spondylosis, is due to an in-service neck injury sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The claim for service connection for residuals of a head injury, to include headaches and memory loss, is remanded for further development.

The Board found that the appellant may not be recognized as a veteran for VA benefit purposes due to lack of verified military service.

The Board found that the appellant knowingly submitted a fraudulent joint affidavit relating to her husband's purported POW status, leading to forfeiture of her rights to VA death pension benefits.

The veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of medical expenses incurred at Norman Regional Hospital on July 18, 2004 was denied because VA facilities were feasibly available and the veteran had health insurance coverage.

The veteran's claim for a higher disability evaluation for his service-connected residuals of an old healed skull fracture is being remanded due to the need for additional medical examination and opinion regarding the severity of his psychiatric condition.

The veteran's surgeries did not result in additional disability, and the Board finds no evidence of negligence or unforeseeable events.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded due to inadequate notification and the need for additional medical records. The case will be reconsidered with these updates.