Other conditions decisions — 2011

The Board has determined that the Veteran does not have a current acquired psychiatric disorder, and any such condition is not service connected.

The Veteran's appeals for increased evaluations of her UTI and right fifth toe disabilities, as well as a TDIU claim, were denied. The Board found that the current ratings adequately reflect the severity of these conditions.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for tooth loss and jaw bone loss, as secondary to Type II diabetes mellitus due to a lack of medical evidence linking these conditions to either service or service-connected Type II diabetes.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's actinic keratosis does not meet or approximate the criteria for a compensable evaluation under any applicable rating code.

The Veteran's claim for an increased rating for post gastrectomy syndrome is being remanded due to the need for updated medical records and a new VA examination.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining dental treatment records and scheduling a VA examination to determine if any diagnosed dental disorders are related to service trauma. The Veteran's claim will be re-adjudicated after this development.

The Veteran's keratoconus, iritis, and uveitis have been evaluated as noncompensable due to visual acuity of 20/60 in both eyes with best corrected vision of 20/25. No higher rating is warranted.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for updated treatment records and a new examination of her bilateral popliteal artery entrapment with compartment syndrome.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded to the RO for additional development, including issuance of a statement of the case regarding his claims for effective dates prior to March 7, 2007, for permanent and total disability ratings for narcolepsy and cataplexy, and basic eligibility to DEA benefits.

The Board has dismissed the Veteran's appeal for entitlement to service connection for an inflamed uvula or laryngitis. The claim of service connection for a bilateral eye disability is denied as there is no diagnosed disorder for which service connection may be considered.

The Board found no clear and unmistakable error in the termination of VA benefits due to character of discharge, as the Veteran was properly notified at his last known address.

The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date of July 13, 2007, for the resumption of full benefits due to release from incarceration is being remanded. The RO/AMC must provide proper VCAA notice and ensure that all contested claims procedures have been followed.

The Board has remanded the case to ensure due process and compliance with a Court Order, including notifying the Appellant of new NAS studies regarding Agent Orange exposure.

The Veteran's death was not service-connected, and the appellant is no longer eligible for DIC as she remarried after her husband's death.

The Veteran's death occurred after the change in law allowing veterans with a 30% or more service-connected disability to receive additional compensation for dependents. The appellant did not have a pending claim at the time of her husband's death, and there was no existing rating decision that would entitle him to such benefits.

The Board found that the Veteran's right eye disability, including vision loss and amblyopia, was a pre-existing condition that did not worsen during service. The claim for service connection is denied.

The Veteran's claim for an increased rating for Grave's disease is being remanded due to the need for additional medical examinations and records.

The Board has determined that the appellant is eligible for VA death benefits and this appeal is dismissed.

The Veteran's claim for a temporary total disability rating for diverticulitis under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.30 based upon convalescence following his November 1, 2006, surgical procedure was denied as he has acknowledged returning to work in December 2006.

The Board denied the Veteran's appeal, finding that an overpayment of $3459 was validly created due to his failure to notify VA of his divorce from his former wife A.M. before benefits were retroactively reduced.