Other conditions decisions — 2010

The Board has found that the claimant's application for educational assistance was not properly addressed and requires further review. The matter is being remanded to allow for additional development, including verification of service and re-examination of the claim.

The Board found that the appellant did not have a valid marriage with the Veteran under Article 34 of the New Family Code of the Philippines, and thus is not entitled to recognition as the surviving spouse for VA benefits purposes.

The Board has determined that the appellant's character of service, which included AWOL and desertion periods, precludes her from receiving VA benefits.

The Veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of non-VA hospitalization costs was denied because the claim was not filed within 90 days after discharge and the services were covered by a healthcare plan, making it ineligible under VA regulations.

The Veteran's service in the Philippine Commonwealth Army and Regular Philippine Army is not considered qualifying service for VA pension benefits purposes. The appellant's application for accrued benefits was received more than 25 years after the Veteran's death, which exceeds the one-year filing requirement. Therefore, both claims are denied.

The Board affirmed the reduction in the rating for residuals of adenocarcinoma of the prostate from 100 percent to 40 percent, effective October 1, 2004.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for glioblastoma, finding that it was not caused by his in-service exposure to ionizing radiation and concluding that there was no reasonable possibility that the glioblastoma resulted from such exposure. The only service-connected disability at the time of death was residuals of pilonidal cyst.

The Board has determined that the appellant is not the surviving spouse of the Veteran, and therefore does not meet the requirements for DIC benefits.

The Board has remanded the claims for a VA opinion to determine if the Veteran's malignant astrocytoma is related to service, including his Persian Gulf War service. The appellant and the Veteran contended that he experienced headaches during service which may have been symptoms of the tumor.

The Board determined that the Veteran's preexisting right foot condition was not aggravated by military service and denied his claim for service connection.

The Veteran's claim for compensation benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 is being remanded due to the VA's failure to locate a specific physician who treated him in 1998, and to obtain his opinion regarding whether the infections were caused or aggravated by VA treatment.

The Veteran's cold injuries of the hands and ear lobes, diagnosed as cold sensitization of the hands and earlobes, were incurred in active military service. The Board finds that the Veteran currently has cold injuries of the feet, which are related to his military service.

The Veteran's unauthorized medical expenses for emergency care at a private facility were denied as the condition was not an emergency and VA facilities were feasibly available.

The Veteran's left sternoclavicular strain is currently rated at 10 percent, but the Board finds that he does not meet the criteria for a higher rating based on limitation of motion or pain.

The Veteran's claim for a higher rating for tremors of the head and neck, since May 3, 2004, was denied as his disability is currently rated at 10 percent.

The Board found no medical evidence linking the Veteran's current bilateral elbow disability to his military service, and denied the claim.

The Veteran's service-connected residuals of a shell fragment wound to the right foot are currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling, which is consistent with the criteria for a moderate disability under Diagnostic Code 5311.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including a medical examination to determine if the Veteran's service-connected left hand injury aggravates his claimed abdominal muscle strain or tear. The TDIU claim is also inextricably intertwined with the service connection claim and must be deferred until the outcome of the other claim.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for an earlier effective date, finding that the evidence did not show a factual ascertainable increase in disability within one year prior to his December 27, 2002, correspondence. The effective date of the increased rating remains at December 27, 2002.

The Veteran's claim for an increased rating for his back disability was denied as the evidence did not show residuals of fracture of the vertebra or unfavorable ankylosis of any segment of the spine, which would warrant a higher rating.