Other conditions decisions — 2011

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including obtaining her Vocational Rehabilitation file and scheduling a hearing before the Board.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and a blood disorder was denied as there is no current diagnosis of either condition, and the 1993 infection is not considered related to his Gulf War service.

The Veteran's appeal has been withdrawn by the appellant through his authorized representative, thus dismissing the appeal.

The Veteran's service-connected right retropatellar pain syndrome, status-post right knee surgery was found to meet the criteria for a 20 percent evaluation due to symptoms including frequent episodes of 'locking', pain and effusion into the joint.

The Board found no evidence of a chronic right elbow disability during service and concluded that any current right elbow disability did not begin in or is otherwise related to service. The claim for service connection was therefore denied.

The case is being remanded due to the lack of a formal document prepared by an individual with appropriate credentials, reflecting that the Veteran's condition was sufficiently stabilized for transfer to a VA or other Federal facility.

The Veteran's DJD of the right hand is currently evaluated at a noncompensable rating due to painful motion. The disability does not meet the criteria for a higher evaluation as it does not involve x-ray evidence of involvement of two or more major joints with occasional incapacitating exacerbations.

The appellant is not recognized as the Veteran's surviving spouse for VA death benefits due to lack of legal recognition of their common law marriage in Maryland.

The Board dismissed the appeal due to the Veteran's death, and thus no jurisdiction remains for adjudicating the merits of the claim.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded for clarification on whether he wishes to continue his appeal of the denial of his own SMC claim based upon the regular aid and attendance of another, and whether he wishes to have a videoconference hearing or Travel Board hearing before BVA.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has not been presented to reopen the Veteran's claim for service connection for a skin rash over his entire body, as there is no evidence showing a connection between the current condition and military service.

The Board has determined that the appellant may not be recognized as the surviving spouse of the Veteran for purposes of VA dependency and indemnity compensation due to her remarriages prior to meeting certain legal requirements.

The Board finds that the Veteran did not suffer additional disability to his left arm as a result of VA medical treatment, and thus does not meet the criteria for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151.

The Board dismissed the appeal due to the death of the appellant.

The Board found that idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis was not incurred in or aggravated by service and is unrelated to any disease or injury of service origin. The Veteran's current condition does not meet the criteria for service connection.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including obtaining updated treatment records and scheduling a VA examination to assess the current severity of his service-connected right foot disability.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding whether the Veteran's IgA nephropathy began during his military service. The Veteran was treated for kidney stones in October 1998, and a VA examination is needed to determine if there is a link between his current condition and his time in service.

The Veteran's tongue cancer, presumed to be related to service, metastasized and caused his lung cancer death. The Board grants service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death.

The Board has determined that there is no current disability to account for sleep deprivation, and thus the claim for service connection is denied.

The Veteran's claim for education benefits under Chapter 30 was denied as he did not meet the eligibility criteria due to his delimiting date and failure to request an extension of that period.