Other conditions decisions — 2007

The Board has granted service connection for varicose veins of the right and left lower extremities, finding that new evidence supports reopening the claim. The veteran's bilateral varicose veins are considered to have originated during his active military service.

The Board found that the veteran's gallstones and/or cholecystectomy were not service-connected, as there was no evidence of carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, error in judgment, or similar instance of fault on the part of VA.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to a lack of verification of his claimed in-service stressors.

The veteran has withdrawn his appeal regarding the issue of special monthly compensation based on being housebound.

The Board has determined that the appellant's discharge from military service under other than honorable conditions does not entitle him to VA benefits, as his claim was previously denied and no new and material evidence has been received since then.

The VA denied a claim for an increased rating for postgastrectomy syndrome, finding that the veteran's condition did not more nearly approximate severe than moderate and did not meet criteria for a higher rating.

The Board has determined that the veteran's residuals of a fracture of the right tibia with sequestrectomy, sinusectomy and osteomyelitis do not warrant an increased rating beyond the current 30 percent assigned.

The Board has determined that the veteran's current reflex sympathetic dystrophy is at least as likely as not related to his period of service, and thus grants service connection for this condition.

The Board has ordered a remand to the RO for another NPRC records search to verify the appellant's service. The case will be returned to the Board for further review if necessary.

The Board has determined that the decedent did not have basic eligibility for VA benefits due to a lack of verified service.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the veteran's claim for service connection for a muscle weakness condition, which is now considered reopened.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including obtaining VA medical records and scheduling the veteran for a VA examination to assess her current level of severity for her service-connected disabilities. The veteran will also be provided with a supplemental statement of the case that includes copies of relevant Diagnostic Codes.

The veteran is seeking an increased rating for his service-connected essential benign tremors, both hands. The current appeal is being remanded to determine the severity of the condition.

The Board has determined that the veteran's service-connected tachycardia does not warrant a rating in excess of 10 percent, and her initial disability rating for recurrent chalazion of the right eye is found to be appropriate at 10 percent.

The veteran's thoracic spine disability is not rated higher than 40 percent, and he does not meet the criteria for a TDIU.

The Board has determined that additional development is needed to obtain relevant VA medical records and the appellant should submit any additional evidence she has in her possession. The case will be remanded for these actions.

The VA determined that the veteran's service-connected nodule of the upper pole of the left testicle does not warrant a rating higher than 20 percent, as there is no evidence of urinary leakage requiring absorbent materials changed more than four times per day or urinary frequency to the extent he wakes up to void five or more times per night.

The Board found that the veteran's SLE was not incurred during active service and denied her claim for service connection.

The Board has determined that additional VCAA notification is necessary before the claim can be decided.

The Board has decided to remand the case for additional development, including obtaining VA treatment records from before May 1999 and preparing a Statement of the Case regarding the educational assistance claim.