Other conditions decisions — 2010

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining employment records from McKesson Drug and medical examination to determine if service-connected bilateral pes planus aggravates the Veteran's back and neck disabilities.

The Veteran's claim for a higher rating for splenomegaly was denied as the condition does not meet the criteria for a higher rating under any applicable diagnostic codes.

The Veteran's service connection claims for residuals of a contusion of the left forearm, chest injury, breathing disorder (pulmonary), and sleep disorder have all been denied. The Board found no evidence of current disabilities related to these conditions.,Post-service medical records do not show any diagnosis of a left forearm or chest disability. Regarding the Veteran's breathing condition, he was diagnosed with dyspnea but did not meet criteria for a pulmonary disability based on his PFTs and CT scan results. The sleep disorder claim was denied as well.

The Veteran's unauthorized medical expenses incurred from January 25, 2007 to February 23, 2007 at Parish Medical Center were granted payment by VA.

The Board dismissed the appeal due to the death of the appellant, and thus has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this claim.

The Veteran's service-connected residuals of a fracture of the fifth proximal metacarpal of the left hand is rated at 0 percent (noncompensable) and not shown to interfere with employment or require frequent hospitalization.

The Veteran's service-connected right shoulder disability has been rated at 20 percent since the filing of his claim. The Board found that the condition more nearly approximates limitation of motion to shoulder level, warranting a 20 percent rating under Diagnostic Code 5201.

The Board has determined that contested claims procedures have not been followed and the case is being remanded for further action.

The VA determined that the Veteran's neck disorder was not incurred or aggravated by service, and therefore denied his claim for service connection.

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

The appellant is in receipt of the maximum annual rate of pension benefits for a surviving spouse with no dependent minor children. Her claim for an increase in the amount of pension benefits cannot be granted as she has always received the maximum annual rate, save for periods when she was not entitled to any benefits due to fugitive felon status.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for a lung disorder, including as due to gas exposure during his military service, is being remanded for further development.

The Board has decided to remand the case for further development, including obtaining VA treatment records and scheduling a VA pulmonary examination.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for additional medical records and a new examination. The issue remains whether he qualifies for special monthly pension at the housebound rate.

The Veteran's service-connected patellar tendinitis of the left knee is currently manifested by pain and minimal limitation of motion, but does not meet the criteria for a higher rating.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining service treatment records and determining when any periods of ACDUTRA occurred. The Veteran's bilateral Achilles tendon inflammation will be examined to determine its likely etiology.

The Veteran withdrew the appeals for an initial, compensable disability rating for basal cell carcinoma and the appeal for service connection for hyperlipidemia at his hearing before the Board.

The case is remanded for further action regarding the appellant's claim of recognition as the Veteran's surviving spouse for purposes of VA death benefits.

The Veteran's claim for compensation benefits under the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for loss of vision is being remanded to allow for consideration of new evidence.

The Veteran's widow is seeking payment or reimbursement for medical expenses incurred at TCRH and WFUBMC, including ambulance transfers. The VAMC has denied the claim on grounds that the Veteran had some degree of insurance coverage (specifically, under Medicare parts A and B). The Board will remand the case to allow further development in light of the Veterans' Emergency Care Fairness Act of 2009.