Other conditions decisions — 2010

The Board has determined that the Veteran's bilateral defective hearing does not meet the criteria for a compensable evaluation, and thus denied his claim.

The Veteran's mood disorder has been rated at 70 percent since May 14, 2008, reflecting total occupational and social impairment.

The Board found that the Veteran's post-service respiratory symptoms are not etiologically related to his in-service respiratory symptoms and did not have hypertension during service or within one year of his discharge from service, nor is it otherwise etiologically related to service.

The Veteran seeks service connection for subfoveal choroidal neovascular membrane of the right eye, claimed as status post photodynamic therapy. The VA examiner determined that this condition is related to his aging macular degeneration and not to his diabetes mellitus type II.

The Veteran's appeal for an increased rating for a duodenal ulcer was dismissed due to his death.

The Veteran's claim for concurrent receipt of military retired pay and VA service-connected disability compensation is being remanded due to the need for additional development, including an audit of his compensation account and clarification from DFAS and the United States Air Force regarding amounts of military retired pay due and paid.

The Veteran's phlebitis of the left lower extremity and right hand disability were both found to not warrant a higher rating.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including a new examination and obtaining relevant medical records.

The Veteran's claim for reimbursement of travel expenses incurred on January 13, 2009, and January 15, 2009 is granted as the evidence shows that it was medically determined that the Veteran required the presence of his spouse because of a physical condition.

The Board found that a valid overpayment of $20,262.34 was created due to the miscalculation of aid and attendance pension benefits based on unverifiable unreimbursed medical expenses.

The Veteran's varicose veins of the lower extremities did not manifest during or as a result of active military service. The preponderance of evidence does not support a finding that these conditions are related to his military service.

The Veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of unauthorized medical services received at Sutter Amador Hospital was denied as he did not have any adjudicated service-connected disabilities and was not participating in a vocational rehabilitation program.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's right thigh disability is not related to his service-connected diabetes mellitus and therefore denied the claim.

The Board has determined that the appellant's service-connected right eye disability requires restoration of fee-basis medical treatment due to geographical inaccessibility and unavailability at VA facilities, with the Northport VAMC being both geographically inaccessible and not capable of providing the required care.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for an increased rating for dysthymic disorder, finding that his symptoms did not warrant a higher evaluation.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for adenocarcinoma of the left parotid gland, finding that it was not incurred or aggravated by active service and not related to exposure to herbicides. The Board also found no evidence linking the condition to a sebaceous cyst noted in service.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal on the issues of service connection for dental trauma, including loss of teeth and for a dental disorder for purposes of obtaining VA dental treatment.

The Board found that the Veteran's chronic spine disorder, including back injury residuals, removal of the tailbone, discitis, and osteomyelitis, was not present in service, did not manifest within one year of discharge, and is not etiologically related to his military service or a service-connected disability.

The Veteran's quadriplegia with residuals is not considered to be due to VA medical and surgical treatment in June 2004, as the proximate cause of his disability was not attributable to carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, error in judgment or other fault on VA's part.

The Board determined that the Veteran's discharge was due to willful and persistent misconduct, but found that his insanity at the time of misconduct should be considered an exception to the bar on VA benefits.