Other conditions decisions — 2010

The Veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses incurred at Cookeville Regional Medical Center from February 4, 2008, to February 6, 2008 is denied as the Veteran does not meet the eligibility criteria under VA regulations.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including a VA examination to determine if the Veteran's paroxysmal atrial fibrillation is secondary to his service-connected asbestosis.

The Board dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's withdrawal of the appeal.

The Veteran's service-connected iron-deficiency anemia is productive of a hemoglobin level in excess of 10.0gm/100ml, but requires continuing treatment with oral iron supplementation and reports weakness, easy fatigability, and headaches. The criteria for an evaluation in excess of 10 percent have not been met.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's current evaluations for his subtotal gastrectomy and vagotomy do not meet the criteria for a higher rating, as he does not have active ulcer or anemia symptoms. The scars resulting from the surgeries are also not shown to be painful, tender, or cause significant functional impairment.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's residuals of right cerebrospinal fluid otorhinorrhea originated with an in-service head trauma and grants service connection for this condition.

The Veteran's varicose veins of the left leg are considered to have been incurred in service, and she is granted service connection for this condition.

The Veteran's lung disability is being remanded for further development to determine if it is related to service exposure, as the evidence of record is insufficient to decide the claim.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's panhypopituitarism was not incurred in or aggravated by active duty, and thus denied service connection for this condition.

The Veteran's claim for compensation benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 is denied as there is no evidence of negligence, error in judgment or lack of skill in the treatment provided by VA during his December 2001 hospitalization and surgery.

The Veteran's claims for an initial disability rating in excess of 30 percent for hysterectomy, and effective dates prior to March 31, 2005 for service connection and SMC based on anatomical loss were denied. The Veteran's hysterectomy included removal of the uterus but not both ovaries.

The appellant's service records do not show active duty during a period of war, and thus does not meet the basic eligibility requirements for pension benefits.

The Board found that the reduction from a 100% rating to a 20% rating for adenocarcinoma of the prostate was procedurally proper and determined that a 20% rating, based on voiding dysfunction or renal dysfunction, is appropriate.

The Board finds that the appellant does not meet the legal requirements of being recognized as the Veteran's surviving spouse for purposes of receiving VA death benefits.

The Board has granted service connection for a gastrointestinal condition, including reflux esophagitis with a hiatal hernia. The claim of residuals of a right leg injury is dismissed.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's claim for service connection for a bladder condition is reopened, but further examination and opinion are needed to determine if his current bladder disability is related to service. The Veteran also needs an examination to assess whether his right bundle branch block aggravated or caused his heart disease.

The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate information and need for further development, including obtaining private records from the Veteran's employers and affording him VA examinations.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded to the RO for additional development, including obtaining medical records and considering new evidence. The claim will be readjudicated based on this information.

The Board has granted service connection for the scar on the left lower lip residual to squamous cell carcinoma and assigned an initial noncompensable rating, which was later changed to a 10 percent rating effective from October 17, 2003.

The Board denied the appellant's request to reopen his claim regarding his character of discharge from military service, finding that no new and material evidence had been submitted.