Other conditions decisions — 2009

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for further evaluation and consideration of his dysthymia disability.

The Veteran's claim to reopen his service connection for a chronic skin disorder has been remanded due to the need for VCAA notice.

The Board has determined that the Veteran is reasonably discharging his responsibility for the appellant's support and therefore, does not meet the criteria for an apportionment of the Veteran's compensation benefits.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded due to the need for a VA examination to determine the current severity of his left leg post-phlebitic syndrome, and for obtaining any outstanding treatment records.

The Board has determined that the appellant is entitled to recognition as the Veteran's surviving spouse for purposes of VA death benefits, given her continuous cohabitation with the Veteran from their marriage until his death.

The Veteran's claims for assistance in acquiring an automobile or other conveyance and adaptive equipment, specially adapted housing, and a special home adaptation grant are being remanded due to the need for a Travel Board hearing.

The Board finds that the appellant meets the continuous cohabitation requirements for recognition as the Veteran's surviving spouse for purposes of eligibility for VA benefits, and grants her claim.

The Veteran's appeal has been dismissed as the appellant withdrew it.

The Veteran's dysthymic disorder is productive of impairment in occupational and social functioning with reduced reliability and productivity, but does not meet the criteria for a higher rating.

The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date of June 22, 2005 for the grant of separate 10 percent evaluations for varicose veins of the bilateral lower extremities is granted.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's osteomyelitis is proximately due to or aggravated by his service-connected non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and thus grants service connection for this condition.

The Board denied the Veteran's request to reopen his service connection claim for a pilonidal cyst, finding that evidence did not show aggravation of the preexisting condition during service.

The Board found that the Veteran's current vascular disease of the bilateral legs was not incurred in active service or caused by his service-connected bilateral pes planus.

The Veteran's urethral obstruction disability has been rated as non-compensable since June 18, 2007. The VA examinations and the Veteran's testimony indicate that he does not have any urinary symptoms such as incontinence or recurrent infections, nor does he require absorbent materials. His current condition is characterized by occasional major obstructions without significant functional impairment.

The Veteran's claim for pension benefits was pending at the time of his death and he was entitled to such benefits. The Board granted burial benefits as a result.

The Veteran's bilateral eye disorder is currently rated as 30 percent disabling under Diagnostic Code 6029 (aphakia) and does not meet the criteria for a higher evaluation. The evidence shows best corrected visual acuity of 20/70 bilaterally, which corresponds to a 30 percent rating.

The Veteran's request for waiver of overpayment was not timely filed within the required 180-day period after notification, and he did not provide a valid reason to extend this time limit.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for arthritis of the hands due to cold injuries has been granted. The Board found that the Veteran had current disability, in-service incurrence of a disease or injury (cold exposure), and medical nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for recognition as the Veteran's surviving spouse, finding that there was no evidence of continuous cohabitation and thus did not meet the legal requirements to be considered a surviving spouse.

The Veteran's pension claim was received on January 24, 2006. The appellant is not a surviving spouse and the Veteran did not become totally and permanently disabled within one year prior to filing his pension claim. Therefore, an earlier effective date for the grant of pension benefits with special monthly pension based on aid and attendance is denied.