Other conditions decisions — 2010

The Board has determined that a new VA examination is needed to properly adjudicate the Veteran's claim for service connection for a bladder disability, as it may be related to his service-connected low back disability. The Veteran will need to provide information about any medical providers who have treated him for these conditions.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for TMJ disorder as there is no evidence of a current disability and no in-service injury or disease related to this condition.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for a one-time payment from the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund due to lack of qualifying service and therefore, the appellant is not eligible for this benefit.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for another VA examination to assess his employability due to service-connected disabilities. The case will be readjudicated after the examination.

The Veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for right ear numbness, claimed also as fullness, resulting from VA surgeries in November 2001 and February 2002 was denied because there is no competent medical evidence to support the assertion that the numbness resulted from carelessness, negligence, or lack of proper skill on the part of VA.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's right urethral stone does not meet the criteria for a compensable evaluation under VA rating criteria.

The Veteran's right ankle disability, which is manifested by arthritis and limitation of motion, warrants a 20 percent rating.

The Veteran's death was not service-connected, and he did not meet the criteria for burial benefits. However, his plot or interment allowance is granted as he served honorably and was not buried in a national cemetery.

The Veteran's benign prostatic hypertrophy was not incurred in or aggravated by active service, nor may it be presumed to have been so incurred or aggravated. The Board found that the disability is not related to his diabetes mellitus.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including obtaining updated medical records and scheduling the Veteran for VA examinations to assess his current disability status.

The Board has determined that the appellant's husband did not have qualifying service for VA death pension benefits and therefore denied her claim.

The Board has decided to remand the case for additional development, including obtaining Social Security Administration (SSA) records related to the Veteran's back disorder.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for death pension benefits due to her income exceeding the maximum allowable rate.

The Board has ordered additional development due to missing service treatment records and the need for proper notice regarding secondary service connection.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral hip degenerative joint disease and an increased rating for post-arthroscopy residuals of a left knee strain were denied. The Board found new and material evidence to reopen the claim for bilateral hip degenerative joint disease, but denied it on the merits.

The Veteran's claim for an increased rating for dermatophytosis of the bilateral feet, face, arms, and legs is being remanded due to a need for further examination.

The Board finds that the Veteran does not have a current disability manifested by urinary frequency and urgency, and thus service connection for this condition is denied. For his right hip strain with DJD and bilateral plantar fasciitis with DJD of the first MTP joints, the preponderance of evidence shows no compensable or higher ratings are warranted.

The Veteran's appeal has been withdrawn due to the request for withdrawal of the appeal.

The Board found that the appellant did not meet the criteria to be recognized as the Veteran's surviving spouse for VA purposes due to a separation from the Veteran without fault on her part.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for sacralization of L5, spondylosis at L5 was granted effective January 20, 1976. The case is now remanded to determine appropriate disability ratings and TDIU.