Other conditions decisions — 2009

The appellant's military service does not meet the threshold requirements for VA nonservice-connected pension benefits as he did not serve on active duty during a period of war.

The Board found that there is no evidence to support a finding of cold injury residuals in the Veteran's upper or lower extremities, and thus denied service connection for these conditions.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claim for a higher rating for his hiatal hernia, finding that he does not have persistently recurrent epigastric distress with dysphagia, pyrosis, and regurgitation, accompanied by substernal or arm pain, causing considerable impairment of health.

The Board denied the appellant and her son's eligibility for CHAMPVA benefits as they are not the surviving spouse or child of the Veteran.

The Board found that the Appellant's deceased husband did not have qualifying service as a guerilla in the United States Armed Forces, and therefore is not eligible for VA death benefits.

The Veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for bradycardia is being remanded due to the need for further medical examination and opinion regarding the relationship between his use of a Fentanyl patch in May 2003 and subsequent bradycardia requiring a pacemaker.

The Veteran's cognitive disorder resulting from cerebral and cerebellar atrophy is found to have originated during his active service.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining relevant documents and conducting a paid and due audit to determine how the DEA benefits overpayment was created.

The Board found that the Veteran does not have residuals of cold injury to the arms, feet and/or face present in service or related to active duty. Therefore, service connection for these conditions was denied.

The Board denied service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death due to a coronary occlusion, which was not considered physiologically possible from thrombophlebitis. The moving party argues that there was CUE because the cause of death should have been pulmonary embolism and the opinion linking thrombophlebitis to coronary occlusion would have been different.

The Veteran's unauthorized medical treatment for C. difficile colitis was not authorized by VA, and the Board determined that reimbursement was denied due to lack of emergency condition and availability of VA facilities.

The Board has found clear and convincing evidence that the appellant violated regulations by accepting unlawful compensation for his services. The appeal is denied as he is not entitled to restoration of accreditation or a stay of cancellation.

The Board has determined that additional development is necessary to determine if a VA facility was feasibly available for the Veteran's treatment during his hospitalization from April 20, 2006, to April 25, 2006.

The Veteran's emergency medical treatment at St. Mary's Hospital was for a bona fide emergency and the Veteran clearly identified his wish to be transferred to the VA Medical Center (VAMC). The VAMC provided beds as soon as they became available, and the Veteran was transferred expeditiously. As there are no alternative insurers or other third-party payers, the Veteran is personally responsible for the cost of treatment at St. Mary's Hospital.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete medical records, lack of consideration of all relevant provisions for reimbursement under 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1725 and 1728, and inadequate duty-to-assist letter.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete records from the Good Shepherd Hospice and other issues.

The Board found that the Veteran does not have a current skin disorder related to his military service and denied his claim for service connection.

The Board granted increased ratings for varicose veins of the right and left lower extremities, effective May 7, 2007. The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for TDIU was not addressed in this decision.

The Board has ordered a remand to obtain additional medical opinions and review the claims file for any relevant evidence. The case will be returned to the Board for further consideration.

The Board has ordered additional development to determine the etiology of the Veteran's abdominal/pelvic pain and its relationship to service. The case is being remanded for a VA examination by a gynecologist.