Other conditions decisions — 2009

The Board is remanding the case to obtain missing VA records and readjudicate the claim of entitlement to benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for additional disability, claimed as numbness and weakness of the right hand and arm, due to VA surgical treatment in July 2004.

The Veteran's claim of service connection for nicotine dependence was denied as there is no evidence linking his current condition to service or any exposure to ionizing radiation.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for degenerative joint disease of the left hip, to include as due to herbicide exposure, is denied. The Board found no medical evidence or opinion suggesting a relationship between the current disability and service, including any in-service herbicide exposure.

The Board found that the Veteran's residuals of right spastic hemiplegia were not incurred in or aggravated by active service, nor may such be presumed. The preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the condition is related to service.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for arthritis has been granted. The Board found that the evidence established a direct link between his current arthritis and his active service.

The Veteran's service-connected digestive disorder, manifested by epigastric distress along with nausea, vomiting, and stomach pain without weight loss, anemia, malnutrition or hypoglycemic symptoms, is not more than a moderate postgastrectomy syndrome. As such, the current 40 percent rating for residuals of subtotal gastrectomy remains appropriate.

The Board has reopened the Veteran's claim for service connection for varicose veins of the left lower extremity and denied it on the merits.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for further evaluation and consideration due to the need for additional medical examination.

The Veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 is denied as there was no additional disability resulting from the July 2004 colonoscopy with polypectomy.

The Board has determined that the evidence does not support the appellant's claim for service connection for a gastrointestinal disorder, and the case is being returned to the RO/AMC for further development.

The Board found that the overpayment of additional compensation for a dependent spouse was properly created from May 1998 to September 2000, but not from September 2000 to September 2004. The Veteran was at fault in creating the overpayment due to his failure to report his divorce and remarriage.

The Board found that the Veteran's claimed tremors of the right upper extremity and hypertension are not related to his service-connected residuals of gallbladder removal, and thus denied both claims.

The Veteran died in April 2005. The appellant was not legally married to the Veteran at the time of his death, and therefore cannot be recognized as his surviving spouse for VA death benefits.

The Board denied the appellant's eligibility for death pension and DIC as the Veteran's surviving spouse due to her marriage not meeting the required criteria.

The Veteran's cause of death was not caused by a service-connected condition or presumed exposure to herbicides. The Board found the Veteran did not have lung cancer at the time of his death and assigned greater weight to the VHA examiner's opinion.

The Board finds that the Veteran does not have a low back disability due to disease or injury incurred in service. The evidence does not support a finding of an in-service injury and there is no competent medical evidence linking any current low back disability to service.

The Board denied the Veteran's attempt to reopen his claim for service connection for a fungus infection of both ears, finding that no new and material evidence had been submitted.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for an effective date prior to January 9, 2006 for the grant of service connection for Waldenstrom's macroglobinemia (also claimed as non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma) associated with Agent Orange exposure. The appeal was based on a presumption of exposure.

The Board has remanded the case due to the appellant's request for a videoconference hearing, and the claim will be processed accordingly.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including a VA examination and consideration of new evidence.