Other conditions decisions — 2009

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including obtaining additional medical records and scheduling a VA examination. The Veteran's claim will be reviewed de novo to determine if there is clear and unmistakable error in the February 1972 rating decision.

The Board has remanded the case for further development to determine if periods of service qualify as ACDUTRA and whether there is a nexus between the Veteran's service and his death.

The Board found that the Veteran's sleep disorder and fatigue were not incurred in or aggravated by service, nor are they due to an undiagnosed illness. The claim for service connection was denied.

The Board has remanded the claims for clarification of the diagnosis and to obtain a new medical examination.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's current residuals of burn to right hand, including blood poisoning and staph infection, are related to service.

The Board found no evidence to support a direct service connection for the Veteran's right elbow tendonitis and concluded that it is not related to his military service. The claim was also examined under secondary service connection, but as the Veteran did not provide necessary medical nexus evidence, this theory of entitlement was also denied.

The Board found that the Veteran's bilateral optic nerve atrophy was not incurred or aggravated during service and is not related to his military service, including exposure to herbicides. As a result, the claim for service connection was denied.

The Veteran's perirectal abscess was granted a disability rating of 60 percent effective November 1, 2003. The appeal is remanded for further development and consideration.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for multiple myeloma, finding no evidence of a nexus between the condition and his military service.

The Veteran's service-connected cerebrovascular accident residuals are currently rated at 10 percent, and the Board finds that a higher rating is not warranted based on the current evidence.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's current eye disorders are not related to his active service, and therefore denied the claim for service connection.

The Veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 is being remanded due to insufficient medical opinion regarding the additional eye disability incurred as a result of surgeries performed by VA in 2002.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses associated with a power wheelchair, citing lack of statutory authority and provisions under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1714(a).

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development at the VAMC in Birmingham, Alabama. The issue of reimbursement for unauthorized medical expenses from December 14, 1998 will be reconsidered.

The Board determined that the appellant and the Veteran did not enter into a valid common law marriage, thus denying her claim for recognition as the surviving spouse of the Veteran.

The Veteran's unauthorized medical treatment for a dog bite wound was not authorized by VA, and no VA facility was feasibly available. The claim is denied as the criteria for payment or reimbursement under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1725 were not met.

The Board has determined that further development is necessary before the claim can be fully adjudicated, including obtaining information about asbestos exposure and providing a medical opinion regarding the relationship between the Veteran's carcinoma of the foreskin/penis and service.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for thrombosis of the left lower extremity and for increased ratings for neuropathy of the right femoral nerve, Sjogren's syndrome with visual manifestations, degenerative joint disease of the left knee, and degenerative joint disease of the right knee. The claim for TDIU was not addressed in this decision.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's stomach condition was not incurred in active service and denied his claim for service connection.

The Board has determined that the submitted evidence does not meet the criteria for reopening the Veteran's previously denied claims of entitlement to service connection for diverticulum of the esophagus, reflux esophagitis, and tooth loss.