Other conditions decisions — 2010

The Board is unsure if there is a justiciable case or controversy before the Board concerning the award of apportionment to P.E. of additional compensation from January 1, 2006 to May 2, 2007 based on P.E. being the Veteran's child due to conflicting evidence regarding whether P.E. was in school during that period.

The Veteran's service-connected iritis/uveitis is shown to have been manifested by episodes of activity with complaints of pain, swelling, and blurred vision. Objective examination has not demonstrated resulting impairment of corrected central visual acuity beyond what is contemplated by the current disability rating, nor loss of visual field, nor required rest or episodic incapacity.

The Veteran has withdrawn his appeal regarding the issue of entitlement to the repair or replacement of an inground pool heater through Independent Living Services. As a result, this issue is dismissed without prejudice.

The Board has determined that the appellant is entitled to recognition as the Veteran's widow for VA death pension purposes and will be provided separate correspondence from the RO concerning her potential entitlement to death pension benefits. As a result, the appeal in this case must be dismissed.

The Board has ordered the case to be remanded for compliance with VCAA requirements, specifically providing the Veteran with Kent compliant notice regarding the basis of the previous denial and what evidence is needed to reopen his claim.

The Board found that the Veteran's diplopia is at least as likely as not related to service and granted service connection for this condition.

The VA determined that the appellant's deceased spouse did not have service as a member of the Philippine Commonwealth Army, including recognized guerrillas, in the service of the U.S. Armed Forces and therefore is not eligible for VA benefits based on his service.

The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for a 20% disability rating for TMJ disorder was denied as there is no evidence of clear and unmistakable error in the prior rating decisions.

The Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of prostatic hypertrophy, and the preponderance of evidence is against service connection for this condition.

The Veteran's income exceeds the maximum annual rate for nonservice-connected pension benefits, resulting in denial of his claim.

The Veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 is granted as the additional disability in the form of a tissue injury in the chest was caused by carelessness, negligence, and error in judgment on the part of VA in administering chemotherapy with Adriamycin extravasation.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus were denied. His cold injury residuals with onychomycosis have been rated at 20% since February 26, 2003.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete National Guard records and insufficient medical evidence regarding the etiology of the Veteran's current head injury residuals.

The Board denied all claims for increased evaluations for the Veteran's bilateral knee disabilities, finding that his conditions did not warrant ratings in excess of 10 percent.

The Veteran's request for a videoconference hearing has been scheduled, but he has requested a Travel Board hearing instead. The case is being remanded to schedule the Veteran for this Travel Board hearing.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining medical records and providing the Veteran with appropriate VA examinations to assess his service-connected disabilities.

The Veteran's appeal for a nonservice-connected pension has been dismissed due to the death of the appellant.

The Veteran's claim for an increased evaluation for his crusted lesion, lower left leg is being remanded due to the need for additional medical examination and development of evidence.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for dilated cardiomyopathy was granted with an effective date of June 1, 1999.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for a videoconference hearing at the local VA office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.