Other conditions decisions — 2011

The Board has remanded the case due to the appellant's failure to appear for a scheduled travel board hearing, and she requested another hearing. The case is now pending with instructions to schedule her for a personal hearing.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for recognition as the Veteran's surviving spouse, finding that her divorce from the Veteran was valid and she did not meet the requirements to be recognized as his surviving spouse.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims of entitlement to service connection for BPH status post transurethral resection and a skin condition, finding that there was no evidence linking these conditions to his service or exposure to herbicides. The appeal is dismissed.

The Board has reopened the claim for service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death due to new and material evidence provided by a private physician, which supports the appellant's contention that the Veteran's service-connected gunshot wounds led to his development of peptic ulcer disease and ultimately gastric carcinoma.

The Board has determined that the appellant does not have qualifying active service as a member of the Philippine Commonwealth Army, including recognized guerrillas, in the Armed Forces of the United States. Therefore, he is not eligible for a one-time payment from the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund.

The appeal is being remanded due to the appellant seeking a videoconference hearing. The Veteran was satisfied with the apportionment decision and did not request one, but the appellant still wants her case heard before the Board.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to a lack of clarity in the Veteran's claims and evidence. The issue is whether forfeiture of VA benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 6104(a) was proper.

The Veteran's death was caused by ischemic heart disease, which is presumed to be due to his exposure to Agent Orange during service. As a result, the Board has granted service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death.

The Board has remanded the case for further action, including determining who is the proper appellant and applying the amended provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. ¶ 1725 and ¶ 1728 (effective October 2008).

The Board denied the appellant's claim for legal entitlement to a one-time payment from the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund due to lack of recognized active military service.

The Veteran's death occurred before the enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which established the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund. As a result, the claim for benefits from this fund is denied.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for legal entitlement to the one-time payment from the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund due to a lack of qualified service.

The Board dismissed the appeal because the appellant died before a decision could be made on his claim for one-time payment from the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund.

The Board found no current underlying disability manifested by pain and weakness of the left side of the chest, thus denying service connection for this condition.

The Board has determined that the Veteran does not have a currently diagnosed left arm disability or a qualifying chronic disability of the left arm resulting from an undiagnosed illness. Therefore, service connection for this condition is denied.

The Veteran's chronic right foot disorder, including a retained metallic foreign body with associated foreign body granuloma and metatarsalgia, was incurred during active service.,An acquired psychiatric disorder, including bipolar disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and panic disorder, is related to active service.

The Board found that the Veteran's pulmonary disorder did not have its onset during service, was not related to his active duty, and is not linked to any exposure basis. The claim for service connection was denied.

The Veteran's appeal for service connection for essential tremor has been withdrawn prior to the Board making a decision.

The Veteran's post-operative left knee meniscectomy residuals do not meet the criteria for a higher rating as his range of motion is within normal limits, and he does not have instability or subluxation.

The Board has remanded the case due to issues related to the validity of an overpayment, and the need for further calculation and adjudication. The Veteran's benefits may be apportioned based on his incarceration.