Other conditions decisions — 2008

The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased evaluations for his rectus sheath hernia and midline incision of the lower abdomen, as well as a compensable evaluation for his bladder laceration. The evidence did not support granting any of these claims.

The Board found no evidence that the veteran's service-connected GSW residuals contributed to his death, and thus denied the claim for service connection for the cause of death.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for service connection for bilateral foot problems, finding that there was no evidence linking a current disability to his initial period of active duty for training.

The Board found that the veteran's current balance problem is not related to his military service, including his service-connected hearing impairment. The preponderance of evidence does not support a finding of service connection.

The Board has determined that the veteran's nasopharyngeal carcinoma is a result of exposure to Agent Orange during his service in Vietnam, and grants service connection for this condition.

The appellant has withdrawn her appeal for payment or reimbursement of the veteran's medical expenses incurred from February 10, 2004 to February 11, 2004, for the purposes of accrued benefits.

The veteran's claims for service connection for breathing problems/collapsed lung and a mental health condition were denied, but his service-connected herniated nucleus pulposus at T6-7 status post discectomies with screws, post-operative arthritis of the right ankle, and removal of post portion of left rib number 8 were granted.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for uterine fibroids, total hysterectomy and bilateral oophorectomy, a compensable disability rating for fibrocystic breast disease, status post removal of benign mass from the left breast, and special monthly compensation based on anatomical loss.

The case is being remanded to the RO for further development, including a VA eye examination and interpretation of field of vision test results.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including obtaining SSA records and scheduling a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed systemic body condition.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for further development, including a VA examination and obtaining relevant treatment records.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete information and a need for further development of records.

The veteran's claim for reimbursement of pest control operator certification examination fees for failed examinations in September 2004, March 2005, and December 2005 is denied. However, the veteran passed one exam in June 2005 and his request for reimbursement of that fee and certificate is granted.,The veteran's claim for reimbursement of pest control operator certification examination fees for lawn and ornamental in September 2004 and March 2005 and termite control in September 2005 is denied. However, the veteran passed one exam in June 2005 and his request for reimbursement of that fee and certificate is granted.

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

The Board has remanded the case due to a scheduling issue for a travel Board hearing, and the appellant's representative must be provided an opportunity to review her claim.

The VA denied a higher rating for the veteran's residual, fracture, distal right fibula with traumatic arthritis condition.

The Board has determined that the veteran is not entitled to a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for his service-connected amputation of three toes of the right foot.

The Board has determined that an effective date of June 1, 2007 is warranted for a 30 percent evaluation for bilateral keratoconus.

The veteran's appeal is remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining separation board proceedings records and conducting a VA examination. The claim will be reviewed again after these actions.

The Board has determined that the case needs further development to determine the date of stabilization, clarify dates and services for payment or reimbursement, and assess whether a bed was available at the VA medical facility during the veteran's hospitalization. The appeal is REMANDED.