Other conditions decisions — 2010

The Board has decided to remand the case for additional development, including obtaining service personnel records and a medical examination.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the Veteran's left foot disorder and its relationship to service. The Veteran is requested to undergo further examination to determine if her hallux valgus deformities are related to her in-service surgery.

The Board found that the unauthorized medical expenses incurred for chest pain and alcohol intoxication were covered under VA regulations, as they occurred in a medical emergency of such nature that delay would have been hazardous to health. No VA facilities were feasibly available at the time.

The Board has remanded the case due to conflicting documentation regarding the Appellant's absence from the United States, and the need for further review of his U.S. passport.

The Veteran's lung disability due to asbestos exposure is granted. The initial evaluation for bilateral hearing loss remains at 20 percent.

The Veteran's service connection claim for residuals of a cold injury to the right lower extremity, including joint pain, atrophic skin, hair loss, and numbness is granted. However, his claims for total body joint pain, left lower extremity numbness, left lower extremity and back atrophic skin, and hair loss other than to the right lower extremity are denied.

The Board has determined that the overpayment of $33,002.80 was validly created due to a fraud scheme perpetuated by the Veteran and other students at Ramon Magsaysay Technological University.

The Board has remanded the case due to a need for service department recertification and proper notice regarding the claim.

The Board denied service connection for a gallbladder disorder, finding that the Veteran's lay statements regarding medical etiology were not competent and sufficient to establish a nexus between his gallbladder disorder and military service or a service-connected condition.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for further development, including obtaining medical records and scheduling a VA dental examination.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for education benefits under the Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) program, Chapter 35, Title 38, United States Code due to her not meeting statutory age requirements and lack of entitlement under the law.

The Veteran's claims for higher initial ratings for intermittent paresthesia of the mandible and anterior compression fracture, thoracic vertebra, T-8 with degenerative disc disease (DDD) T7-T8, T8-T9 and T9-T10 were denied as there is no evidence showing severe paralysis or a separately ratable TMJ disorder.

The Veteran's service connection claim for panic disorder with agoraphobia is granted as the evidence supports that his current condition was aggravated by service.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including obtaining service personnel records and determining if the Veteran served in Vietnam or was exposed to herbicides. If confirmed, a VA neurological examination will be scheduled to determine the etiology of the Veteran's tremors.

The Veteran's cold injuries of the right and left feet have been rated at 30 percent before June 6, 2005.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's low back disorder is not related to his military service and therefore denied his claim for service connection.

The Board has granted service connection for bilateral foot calluses, finding that the Veteran's symptoms of calluses began during his active duty and have persisted since then.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for a bilateral foot disorder was denied as there is no evidence of a current disability and the Board found that his claimed condition did not pre-exist service or become manifest during service.

The Board found that the Veteran's injuries were not incurred in the line of duty due to his own willful misconduct, and thus denied the claim.

The Board denied the claim for service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death due to a lack of timely notice of disagreement and because appellant M. R., as an adult daughter, did not meet the legal criteria for entitlement to VA benefits based on being a qualifying child of the Veteran.