Other conditions decisions — 2008

The Board has requested additional development of the claim, including a medical opinion to determine if the veteran's service-connected diabetes mellitus caused or aggravated his fatal pancreatic cancer. The appellant has submitted new evidence and requests that it be reviewed by the RO first.

The Board found that the RO's recoupment of $687 from the veteran's VA compensation to account for her receipt of military pay for 49 days of drill training during FY 2002 was proper, as it represented her permanent rate of VA compensation in effect at the end of FY 2002.

The veteran's neurological manifestations of the left and right hands resulting from partial thickness burns are currently evaluated as mild incomplete paralysis, but do not warrant an evaluation in excess of 10 percent.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for the cause of death and entitlement to DIC under 38 U.S.C. § 1318 due to a lack of evidence showing that his terminal acute myelogenous leukemia was related to active service or any service-connected disability.

The Board found that the evidence does not support a finding that the veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder is secondary to his service-connected diabetes mellitus, peripheral diabetic polyneuropathies, and erectile dysfunction. The claim was denied.

The Board has determined that there is insufficient medical evidence to decide the claim and requires a VA examination to determine if the veteran's current throat pain, ear pain, and dysphonia are related to her military service.

The veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral reflux with hydronephrosis, status post ureteroneocystostomy is being remanded due to incomplete records and the need for a VA medical examination.

The veteran's claim for service connection for a disorder involving nerve damage of the back, lower extremities, and scrotum was denied as there is no evidence linking his current condition to his military service.

The Board has determined that the evidence received since the May 1998 denial is not new and material, thus denying the veteran's request to reopen his claim for service connection for a cardiovascular disorder.

The Board has granted service connection for residuals of torn gastrocnemius muscle, left calf and residuals of coccidioidomycosis.

The Board has determined that there is no current evidence of residuals from a jaw injury or dental trauma incurred during service, and thus the veteran's claims for service connection are denied.

The veteran withdrew his appeal before the Board could make a decision.

The Board has reopened the claims for service connection for filariasis and phlebitis, but denied the claim for deep venous thrombosis. The appellant is entitled to a new VA examination to determine whether he has deep venous thrombosis.

The case is being remanded for a hearing and further development, as the appellant wishes to appear personally before the Board of Veterans' Appeals.

The Board found that the appellant's deceased husband did not have service as a member of the Philippine Commonwealth Army, including recognized guerrillas, in the service of the U.S. Armed Forces and therefore was not a veteran for VA benefits purposes.

The Board has determined that the requirements for payment or reimbursement of private medical expenses incurred on July 10, 2005, at Southern Maryland Hospital have been met and grants the veteran's claim.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including a VA examination to assess the severity of his service-connected bilateral cataract removal with lens implants and compliance with VCAA notice requirements.

The Board has determined that permanent incapacity for self-support was not established for the appellant's son, P.S., and has remanded the case to the RO for further development.

The Board denied the appellant's request for waiver of overpayment because she did not file her request within the required 180-day period after receiving notification of the overpayment.

The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate notice provided in the May 2006 letter decision, and the appellant must provide evidence that his discharge status can be upgraded or changed.