Other conditions decisions — 2008

The Board has dismissed the appeal as the appellant's representative withdrew it prior to a decision being made.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have current diagnoses of bilateral otitis media, otitis externa, or skin rash. Therefore, service connection for these conditions is denied.

The Board has determined that the veteran's right lateral femoral cutaneous neuropathy, resulting from VA surgical intervention in April 2007, is a qualifying additional disability and warrants compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151.

The Board has determined that the veteran's chronic upper respiratory disability, including his residuals of chronic granulomatous disease, is attributable to service and grants service connection for this condition.

The Board granted an initial rating of 30 percent for meralgia paresthetica of the right thigh, effective October 21, 2002. The veteran's disability was found to be moderate to severe in nature and resulted in significant functional impairment.

The Board has requested an advisory medical opinion but the veteran's claims file was misplaced. The case is being remanded to allow for additional efforts to reconstruct the file and assist the appellant in developing her claim of entitlement to service connection for the cause of the veteran's death.

The Board found that the veteran's residuals of a urethral tear did not result in urinary leakage, urinary frequency, or obstructed voiding. As such, he does not meet the criteria for a compensable rating.

The Board has remanded the case for scheduling a Travel Board hearing at the appellant's local RO.

The veteran seeks compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for amputation of his left foot, but the case is being remanded due to incomplete records and further development is needed.

The Board has determined that the veteran's skin disorder was not incurred or aggravated by service, nor is it presumed to be related to herbicide exposure. The preponderance of evidence does not support a finding in favor of service connection.

The Board found that the veteran's claim for an effective date prior to May 3, 2003, for a TDIU was denied as there is no evidence of unemployability due to service-connected disability prior to that date.

The Board found that the veteran's metastatic carcinoma of the liver and intra-abdominal area was caused by VA medical care, specifically a delay in diagnosis due to VA's fault. The decision grants compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151.

The veteran's claims for higher ratings for his service-connected duodenal ulcer and postoperative recurrent pilondial cyst are being remanded to the RO for additional development, including obtaining outstanding VA medical records and providing the veteran with another opportunity to submit evidence.

The Board has denied the appellant's claim for an apportionment of the veteran's VA compensation benefits due to the veteran providing a reasonable discharge of his responsibility for the children's support and because an apportionment would create undue hardship on him.

The Board found that the veteran's conversion reaction disability warranted a 30 percent evaluation, which is the maximum available for this condition.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim for helpless child benefits on behalf of his son 'P.' due to new evidence, but denied the claim as P. was not shown to be permanently incapable of self-support by reason of a mental or physical condition prior to attaining the age of 18.

The veteran's service-connected foot disabilities are currently rated at the maximum allowed under VA regulations, and his TDIU claim is denied as he can perform sedentary employment.

The Board found that the veteran's private dental treatments were not reimbursable due to lack of prior authorization and because VA medical facilities were feasible available.

The veteran is seeking payment for unauthorized medical expenses incurred at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital from March 4, 2004 to March 5, 2004. The RO denied the claim because VA facilities were feasibly available to provide care after the emergency had ended. However, additional development is needed to determine if a VA facility was feasible and available for the veteran's treatment on those dates.

The veteran's appeal for an increased evaluation of dysthymic disorder was dismissed due to the death of the appellant.