Other conditions decisions — 2009

The Veteran's claims for increased evaluations for his service-connected right lower extremity and forearm disabilities were denied. The Board found that the evidence did not meet the criteria for a higher evaluation based on the nature of the injuries.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for initial compensable ratings for duodenal ulcer and post status of lymphoma of the right tonsil, as well as a claim for a 10 percent rating pursuant to 38 C.F.R. � 3.324 due to lack of competent medical evidence showing current disabilities.

The Veteran's claims for syncope, tingling in the extremities, lung disorder (coughing spasms), and tumor on the vocal cords are denied as there is no current evidence of a service-connected disability related to these conditions.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including scheduling a VA examination and readjudicating the claim.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the Veteran's claimed conditions and their relationship to service. Further development is needed, including verification of periods of active duty for training and obtaining medical records.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for left leg arthritis, residual of fracture as there is no evidence of a current disability or in-service injury that could be linked to his condition.

The Veteran's service-connected right total hip replacement was done in 1991, which is not considered to be one year post implantation. Therefore, he does not meet the criteria for a 100 percent rating and his claim for an increased rating is denied.

The Board denied an effective date prior to March 1, 2006 for the payment of additional compensation for a dependent child as the Veteran did not provide social security numbers for his children within one year after being notified.

The Veteran's claims for increased evaluations of his service-connected right leg varicose veins and superficial phlebitis, as well as left leg varicose veins, were denied. The Board found that the evidence did not show persistent edema or stasis pigmentation in either leg to warrant higher ratings.

The Veteran is seeking an effective date prior to July 1, 2006 for the award of additional VA benefits for her child B., who was in school during that period. The RO needs to obtain relevant documentation from the Veteran regarding B.'s status as a student between September [redacted], 2005 and June 5, 2006.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for additional medical records and possibly a new VA examination.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a cardiovascular disorder, finding no evidence of such disorder in service or until many years after service. The Board also found that there is no competent medical evidence linking any current heart disease to service or a service-connected disability.

The Veteran's claim for nonservice-connected pension benefits was denied as he did not meet the threshold eligibility requirements due to insufficient active duty service during a period of war.

The Board has reopened the Veteran's claim for service connection for a skin condition and granted it, finding new and material evidence to support the claim.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for liver damage due to lack of evidence linking the condition to his military service.

The Veteran's cause of death was not service-connected as his acute myelogenous leukemia is not related to his military service or any inservice herbicide exposure.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded for further development and readjudication, including an additional VA examination to determine the current severity of his service-connected residuals of a marked fracture of the second metatarsal of the left foot.

The Veteran incurred unauthorized medical expenses at St. Mary's Medical Center from July 2, 2007 to July 30, 2007 due to an acute upper gastrointestinal bleed following his coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The Board found that the attempt to use a VA facility before seeking treatment at St. Mary's would not have been considered reasonable by a prudent layperson and granted payment of unauthorized medical expenses.

The appellant is not the last-named beneficiary of the Veteran's NSLI policy and thus, is not entitled to the proceeds from such policy.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for a VA examination to assess the current impact of his service-connected bilateral vitreous floaters on his vision and employment, as well as consideration of whether an extraschedular rating is warranted.