Other conditions decisions — 2009

The Board has dismissed the appeal due to the death of the appellant, and thus no jurisdiction remains for adjudicating the merits of the claims.

The Board determined that the overpayment of $1829.00 was validly created due to the Veteran's failure to report his divorce and subsequent marriage, resulting in an overpayment from May 1, 1999 until May 1, 2002.

The Board found no current skin condition and denied service connection for a skin disorder, to include as secondary to herbicide exposure.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded due to insufficient medical evidence and the need for a VA eye examination.

The Veteran's right thigh nerve disability is manifested by numbness and hypersensitivity, but not by at least moderate incomplete paralysis. The criteria for an initial compensable rating have not been met.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for accrued benefits, finding that no additional benefits were due and unpaid at the time of her husband's death.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has not been received to reopen the Veteran's claim of service connection for his right elbow condition, including hypertrophic spur and right upper extremity contracture. The December 1969 rating decision denying reopening of the claim is considered final.

The Board has granted service connection for the Veteran's chronic diarrhea. Regarding his claim for nervousness, the Board found new and material evidence to reopen the claim but did not make a decision on its merits as it is remanded.

The Board has determined that a VA examination is needed to determine the nature and likely etiology of the Veteran's claimed bilateral hip disabilities, including as secondary to his service-connected low back disability. The appeal will be remanded for this purpose.

The Veteran seeks service connection for muscle damage, nerve damage of the left leg and hand, as well as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The Board has determined that further development is needed to determine the nature and etiology of these conditions.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's current lower back disability is not related to his active service, and thus denied his claim for service connection.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has not been received to reopen the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for degenerative changes at L5-S1 with spondylolisthesis. As a result, the appeal is denied.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for additional evidence and assistance in developing evidence pertinent to the appellant's claim.

The Board found that the appellant does not meet the legal requirements to be a surviving spouse due to their separation for many years and lack of continuous cohabitation from the date of marriage until death. Therefore, she is denied DIC, death pension, or accrued benefits.

The Veteran's daughter is not eligible for Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits under 38 U.S.C. Chapter 35 due to her age at the time of her father's permanent and total disability rating.

The Board has granted an effective date of September 28, 2006 for the award of death pension benefits with aid and attendance. This is the earliest effective date permitted by law.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of a tubal ligation reversal is denied as there is no medical evidence showing that the in-service surgery caused current disorders.

The Veteran's claim for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred at a non-VA facility on November 18, 2007 is being remanded due to the lack of necessary documentation and information. The VA Medical Center (VAMC) Fee Processing Center must obtain and associate with the claims file evidence regarding the Veteran's dates of active duty service, hospital records from the November 18, 2007 medical treatment, charges for the treatment, and any insurance coverage.

The Veteran's unauthorized medical expenses incurred from May 9-10, 2006 were approved for reimbursement due to a medical emergency. However, the remaining expenses from May 11-26, 2006 were denied as VA facilities were available in the area and could have provided necessary treatment.

The Board found that the Veteran's current right eye disability was not caused by carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, error in judgment or similar instance of fault on the part of VA during the administration of spinal anesthesia in April 1973. The event (spinal anesthesia) was also not reasonably foreseeable.