Other conditions decisions — 2008

The Board has granted a 30 percent evaluation for each foot, with consideration of the bilateral factor. The veteran's service-connected bilateral foot disorder is primarily manifested by pain, tenderness, moderate edema, severe instability, weakness, and severe muscle atrophy.

The veteran's appeal is remanded due to his failure to appear at a scheduled hearing. The case will be returned to the Board for further action.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for additional examinations and development of his claims.

The Board denied service connection for rectal carcinoma due to Agent Orange exposure, but granted service connection for parastomal hernia as secondary to the veteran's rectal cancer.

The veteran's claim for an extension of his eligibility period for educational assistance under the Montgomery GI Bill is being remanded due to a need for verification of his service in the Active Guard Reserve.

The Board has remanded the case for further development due to incomplete records and a need to provide revised criteria.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including a VA neuropsychiatric examination and clarification of whether the veteran still desires a personal hearing in connection with her appeal.

The veteran's spine disorder is currently manifested by severe intervertebral disc syndrome with intermittent relief and moderate limitation of motion. The evidence does not support an evaluation greater than 40 percent under the revised criteria for intervertebral disc syndrome.

The Board has remanded the case for further development to verify the veteran's service, including his National Guard service. The appeal is now pending again.

The Board found that the veteran's current skin disorder did not have its onset during service or due to Agent Orange exposure, and thus denied his claim for service connection.

The Board has determined that the veteran's painful keratosis of the right foot warrants a 10 percent evaluation since May 22, 2001. The highest schedular rating available for this condition is 10 percent.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for a rating in excess of 10 percent for his service-connected left femur stress fracture residuals, finding that the disability did not meet the criteria for a higher evaluation.

The veteran's service-connected residuals of right (minor) biceps tendon repair with degenerative joint disease are currently characterized by severe injury to Muscle Group V, but no evidence of fibrous union or nonunion of the humerus, or ankylosis of the scapulohumeral articulation is present. The current manifestations do not meet the criteria for a higher evaluation.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claimed intestinal disability and constipation are not related to service or a service-connected condition.

The Board has determined that the veteran's squamous cell carcinoma of the right inferior alveolus was not incurred during active service and is not related to any established event, injury, or disease in service. The claim for service connection is denied.

The Board has determined that the veteran's hysterectomy is not related to her service and therefore denied her claim for service connection.

The Board has determined that the veteran's numbness of the right thumb and index finger, post-cervical spine surgery, is manifested by mild neuropathy of the superficial radial sensory nerve. As such, a higher initial rating for this condition is denied.

The Board denied the veteran's claims of service connection for an enlarged heart and genital herpes, as well as his claim for a compensable initial rating for athlete's foot. The evidence did not establish that these conditions were incurred in or aggravated by military service.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for his service-connected gunshot wounds to the right thigh and left hand, as well as scars of the right arm and forearm. The effective date was not specified.

The veteran did not file a timely notice of disagreement on the claim for apportionment of VA benefits, and therefore the Board lacks jurisdiction to consider this matter.