Other conditions decisions — 2008

The Board has remanded the case for further development due to scheduling of a hearing, compliance with VCAA requirements, and readjudication.

The Board has remanded the case to the RO for additional development and readjudication due to new evidence submitted by the veteran.

The veteran's claim for educational assistance benefits under Chapter 30, Title 38, United States Code is being remanded due to the character of his discharge and potential upgrade.

The Board granted the appellant's motion to have her case advanced on the docket, and found that funds realized from her reverse mortgage cannot be counted as income for the purpose of denying her payment of special monthly pension at the aid and attendance rate.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including a VA examination by an oncologist to determine the onset and etiology of the veteran's odontogenic carcinoma.

The Board has granted a restoration of the veteran's 10 percent rating for pelvic pain and denied an increased rating for urinary frequency. The conditions are unrelated, and the veteran is entitled to separate ratings for each condition.

The Board has reopened the claim of service connection for a right hip disorder due to new evidence submitted since the last final denial. The issues of reopening and granting service connection, as well as evaluating the right ankle disability, are remanded.

The Board found that the veteran's sleep disturbance was not due to an undiagnosed illness or a medically unexplained chronic multi-symptom illness, and instead attributed it to his psychiatric disorders. Therefore, the claim for service connection based on an undiagnosed illness is denied. The direct service connection claim also failed as there were no complaints, treatment, abnormalities, or diagnosis of sleep disturbance during service.

The Board found that the veteran's service-connected complex regional pain syndrome, left and right lower extremities, did not meet the criteria for a disability evaluation in excess of 10 percent.

The case is being remanded for clarification of the hospitalization period and obtaining missing medical records. The veteran's claim will be reconsidered after this additional development.

The veteran's cognitive disorder was initially granted with a 10 percent evaluation from November 17, 1989, to June 4, 2003. From April 6, 2005 onwards, the disability was rated at 70 percent.

The Board found that the veteran does not currently have urethritis and there is no competent or credible evidence of a link between his current benign prostatic hypertrophy and his period of active military service. Therefore, the claim for service connection was denied.

The veteran's appeal is remanded for clarification of the gross and net amount of separation pay after withholding Federal income tax.

The Board has granted separate ratings for each joint affected by gout, but these ratings are not the highest available. The case is still pending as the RO assigned appropriate ratings and compared them to a rating based on active process.

The case is being remanded for additional development, including providing proper VCAA notice and obtaining the divorce decree from Texas state court.

The Board has determined that there is no competent medical evidence indicating a right foot disorder was manifested in service and the veteran's claim for service connection for a right foot disorder is denied.

The Board has determined that the appellant is not eligible for VA death benefits as she does not meet the eligibility criteria set forth in the regulations.

The Board found no support for a compensable disability rating and concluded that the veteran's current respiratory symptoms are not related to his service-connected left lung disorder or active military service.

The Board has determined that the veteran's bilateral pterygium does not affect his visual field or overall visual acuity, and thus does not meet the criteria for a compensable evaluation.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development of his claims, including obtaining medical records from private doctors and the Social Security Administration.