Other conditions decisions — 2008

The Board has granted the appellant an extension of her delimiting date for educational assistance benefits under Chapter 35, Title 38, United States Code, in the amount of 24 months beyond January 28, 2008. The decision is based on severe hardships and emotional toll experienced by the appellant due to the sudden death of her husband and the birth of her child.

The Board has ordered the case to be remanded for further development, including an examination and medical opinion regarding the nature and etiology of any chronic dental disorders, to include loss of teeth. The veteran is required to report for this examination.

The veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of unauthorized private medical treatment on December 6, 2002 was denied as he had coverage under a health-plan contract with his spouse's insurance provider.

The VA has granted a 40 percent disability rating for the veteran's peripheral vascular disease of the left lower extremity as of April 6, 2007.

The Board denied service connection for a sinus disorder, finding that there is no current diagnosis of chronic sinusitis and the evidence does not support a finding of secondary service connection.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for his service-connected right knee instability and degenerative arthritis, finding that the evidence did not support a higher rating based on severe recurrent subluxation or lateral instability of the knee, nor did it show compensable limitation of motion in the knee joint.

The VA determined that the veteran's reactive airway disease does not warrant an increase in disability rating beyond the current 10% evaluation.

The Board has determined that the veteran's congenital hematuria was aggravated by active service, and therefore grants service connection for a disability manifested by blood in urine.

The case is being remanded for the issuance of a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) that includes citation to and summary of specific laws and regulations.

The Board found that the veteran's enlarged prostate was not present during service, did not manifest until over 32 years after separation from service, and has not been shown to be related to any incident during service such as exposure to herbicides. Therefore, the claim for service connection is denied.

The case is being remanded for the issuance of a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) that includes citation to and summary of specific laws and regulations.

The Board has remanded the case for a new hearing at the RO in Phoenix, Arizona. The appellant's claim of service connection for the cause of her husband's death is pending.

The Board has remanded the case for further development to determine if the veteran's current skin disorder is related to his military service, including presumed exposure to Agent Orange.

The Board finds that the veteran's service-connected amoebic dysentery contributed substantially to his death, and therefore grants the benefit for service-connected burial benefits.

The veteran's death was not caused by VA medical care, and the Board found that there is no evidence to support the claim for DIC under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date of October 11, 2000, for a 100% disability rating for his service-connected post-operative subtotal colectomy/ileostomy/ileoinguinal J pouch related to Crohn's disease with primary sclerosing cholangitis.

The veteran withdrew his appeal regarding the earlier effective date for TDIU.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional VA examination and consideration of recent medical records. The issues include service connection for a disorder of the bilateral lower extremities, as well as increased evaluations for her service-connected shin splints.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for non-service-connected disability pension benefits due to her income exceeding the maximum annual rate of improved pension.

The Board has determined that it does not have jurisdiction to address the veteran's appeal regarding his entitlement to HISA program benefits, as he has not filed an appropriate claim and the VAMC HISA Committee has not made a determination on his basic entitlement. As such, questions of whether he may be contractor for the modifications are moot.