Other conditions decisions — 2011

The Veteran's appeal has been withdrawn, and the claims for increased rating for incomplete paralysis of the ninth (glossopharyngeal) cranial nerve and compensable rating for ptosis, left eye have been dismissed.

The Veteran's claim for an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for epithelial hyperplasia of the tongue was denied as his condition does not meet the criteria for a higher rating based on the evidence showing no speech impairment or other disabling symptoms.

The Board denied the appellant's claim as he is not considered a dependent child of the Veteran for VA purposes due to his legal marriage and age at which he became disabled.

The veteran's claim for nonservice-connected pension benefits is denied because they have had no service as an individual or a member of a group considered to have performed active military service.

The Veteran seeks service connection for squamous cell carcinoma at the base of tongue/oral pharynx, which he claims is due to exposure to ionizing radiation during military service. The appeal is remanded as further development is needed, including obtaining relevant medical records and preparing a dose estimate based on available methodologies.

The Board has ordered the Veteran's service personnel records to be obtained and reviewed. The Veteran is seeking pension benefits, but his service dates are unclear due to potential misrepresentation in the claims file. The case will be remanded for further development.

The Veteran's claim for an effective date prior to June [redacted], 2009, for payment of additional compensation benefits for her dependent spouse was denied as she did not provide the necessary information within one year of her marriage.

The Veteran's respiratory disorder was not incurred in service, and the Board denied his claim for service connection.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining medical records and scheduling a VA examination. The issues of increased rating for his right foot disability and TDIU are also being addressed.

The Board found that the Veteran's right eye cataracts were not incurred in service and are not related to his service-connected conjunctivitis. However, he was granted compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for additional disability associated with complications from cataract surgery.

The Veteran's claim for a higher rating for his residuals of a right anterior chest shell fragment wound was denied as the disability did not meet the criteria for a higher rating under Diagnostic Code 5321.

The Board found that the Veteran's compression fracture of T-11 was not caused by VA carelessness, negligence, or fault. The lower lip scar, however, resulted from VA treatment and is considered a result of VA carelessness, negligence, or fault.,VA compensation for the compression fracture of T-11 is denied, but VA compensation for the disfigurement and asymmetry of the lower lip resulting from surgery in January 2000 is granted.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's essential tremor was incurred during active service.

The Board's decision on the cause of death and DIC benefits claim has been vacated due to the appellant's death, as the Board does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate these claims posthumously.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of a CVA, claimed as secondary to his service-connected hypertension, was denied by the Board. The evidence did not support a finding that the Veteran currently suffers from the residuals of a CVA.

The Board found that the Veteran's Paget's disease was not incurred in or aggravated by service and denied his claim for service connection.

The appellant is not recognized as the Veteran's surviving spouse for VA benefits purposes due to her divorce from the Veteran at the time of his death.

The Veteran's claims for service connection were denied as there is no evidence of a chronic skin disorder or bilateral foot disorder related to his military service. The claim for the left cheek scar was also denied, with the Board finding that the current condition does not meet the criteria for a compensable rating under the applicable diagnostic codes.

The Veteran's appeal for a higher evaluation for his post-operative bunionectomy of the left foot was denied. He is currently receiving a 10 percent evaluation, which is the maximum available under the applicable rating criteria.

The Board has remanded the case due to ambiguity in the evidence regarding a spur formation on the right foot fifth metatarsal. The Veteran's claim will be reviewed again after further examination and clarification of the medical findings.