Other conditions decisions — 2010

The Veteran's claim for an initial compensable rating for rheumatic fever with carditis is being remanded due to the need for further development and adjudication.

The Veteran does not have a diagnosed back disability that is service-connected.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals denied the Veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement for unauthorized private medical expenses incurred from March 19, 2005 to March 29, 2005.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral breast disability as there is no evidence of a current disability and no in-service disease or injury that resulted in such a disability.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for chronic tendinitis of the right elbow was denied as there is no evidence showing a current disability, and any potential injury during service did not result in a chronic condition.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for degenerative joint disease of the hips and back is being remanded due to the need for additional development.

The Veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 was denied as there is no indication of VA negligence or fault in the care provided, and any residual disability is not considered additional to the original condition.

The Board found that the appellant could provide certification of continued eligibility for dependent J. S., and thus, apportionment benefits should be reinstated retroactively.

The Veteran is seeking service connection for a bilateral hand and nail disorder, which he claims is related to his service-connected diabetes mellitus. The Board has determined that VA treatment records from the Viera VA Outpatient Clinic need to be obtained, as well as an examination to determine the nature and etiology of the claimed disability.

The Veteran died of metastatic esophageal carcinoma, with significant contributing condition being carcinoma of the colon. The appellant contends that his service-connected osteomyelitis aggravated his cancer and hastened his death.

The Veteran's appeal has been withdrawn, and the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal.

The Board found that the Veteran's current bilateral eye condition is not proximately caused by VA carelessness, negligence, or similar instance of fault. Therefore, his claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 was denied.

The Board has decided to remand the case for additional development, including obtaining an addendum medical opinion regarding whether the appellant's leg length discrepancy contributed to his 2006 left femoral neck fracture.

The Board has granted service connection for a lacunar infarction and its residuals, finding that the Veteran's condition is related to his active duty. The effective date of this decision is not specified as it was granted during the pendency of the appeal.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the claim of service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death. The appellant's representative provided additional evidence, including articles detailing asbestos exposure in military ships during the Veteran's period of service, which contributed to a more complete picture of the circumstances surrounding the origin of the Veteran's disability.

The Veteran's left hand disorder is granted service connection, and he is assigned a 10% initial rating for his right shoulder arthritis. The sinusitis issue remains unresolved.

The Veteran's foot fungus was first noted during his service in the Persian Gulf and has been present since then. The Board finds that this condition is related to his active duty service.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for further development and readjudication due to regulatory changes in the VA regulations regarding secondary service connection.

The Board found that the Veteran's low back disorder is not related to his active service and denied his claim for service connection. The Board also noted that there was no current evidence of neuropathy, which precluded a secondary service connection claim.

The Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for his gastric perforation and splenectomy, concluding that the surgery was not caused by VA care or an event reasonably foreseeable.