Other conditions decisions — 2009

The Board has found that CZ is the Veteran's spouse for VA compensation purposes, based on evidence showing a valid marriage and no prior divorces.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded to obtain his records of treatment from the Naval Regional Medical Center in Jacksonville, Florida for a gunshot wound sustained on January 31, 1981. A VA examination will be conducted to determine the severity of his gunshot wound to the left flank and identify the muscle groups involved.

The Veteran's income exceeded the maximum allowable pension rate, thus he is not entitled to VA improved, nonservice-connected disability pension benefits.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been presented to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disability. The Veteran should be afforded an examination by an ophthalmologist to determine the nature and etiology of all currently present eye disorders.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for cancer of the left parotid gland for accrued benefits purposes and for the cause of death. The appeal is remanded to obtain additional evidence regarding possible radiation exposure during service.

The Board found that the Veteran was not entitled to educational benefits under Chapter 1606 of the Montgomery GI Bill as of November 20, 2002. Therefore, the overpayment of $3,769.51 created as a result of the payment of educational benefits from November 20, 2002, to January 7, 2004, was validly created and denied waiver of recovery.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been received to reopen the Veteran's claim for service connection of residuals of a dislocated left clavicle. The pre-existing condition was aggravated by active duty service, thus warranting service connection.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for an effective date earlier than August 2006 for an award of DIC benefits, finding that the proper effective date was August 1, 2006.

The Board has reopened the appellant's claim of entitlement to service connection for cause of the Veteran's death and granted it, finding new and material evidence. The appeal is now remanded for further development.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for further VA examination and development, including consideration of service connection on both direct and secondary bases.

The Board found that the Veteran did not meet the schedular requirements for consideration of a TDIU prior to April 4, 2002 due to his service-connected disabilities and thus denied an earlier effective date.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the VA's failure to properly notify him of unavailability of service treatment records from Heidelberg, Germany. The claim will be reconsidered after proper notification.

The Veteran's ADHD was not incurred in or aggravated by active duty service.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development to determine if the Veteran was exposed to asbestos in service and whether any exposure contributed to his death.

The Veteran's claim for compensation under the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 due to nerve damage and left leg disability resulting from back surgery performed at a VA medical facility is being remanded for additional development.

The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate development of records and the need for proper notice regarding disability ratings and effective dates.

The Board has remanded the case due to conflicting diagnoses and a need for clarification of the Veteran's current disability. The Veteran will be scheduled for a VA examination to determine if he has herpes or a urinary tract disorder, and whether these conditions are related to his military service.

The Veteran's bilateral foot fungal condition is rated at 10 percent, but the Board finds that a higher rating is not warranted as it does not meet the criteria for a higher rating under any applicable diagnostic codes.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of dental trauma, including the loss of three teeth, is denied as there is no evidence to support a finding that his post-service tooth loss was caused by in-service dental trauma.

The Veteran's gastrointestinal disability and loss of teeth were not found to be related to service, including exposure to ionizing radiation. The claims are denied.