Other conditions decisions — 2011

The Board has determined that the Veteran's claimed residuals of a head injury are not related to his military service and therefore denied his claim for service connection.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to inadequate medical opinions and the need for further examination.

The Veteran's claim for VA compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 was denied because the evidence did not show that his additional disability resulted from carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, error in judgment, or similar instance of fault on the part of VA.

The Veteran's claim for a higher evaluation of his service-connected duodenal ulcers is being remanded due to the need for additional VA outpatient treatment records and an updated VA examination.

The Veteran seeks service connection for mitral valve prolapse, which he claims was first diagnosed in October 1983. The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete medical records from his employment at Ochsner Clinic Foundation.

The Veteran's right foot disorder, including residuals of osteotomies of the fourth and fifth metatarsals, is productive of severe impairment but does not cause loss of use of the right foot. The Board has awarded a 30 percent rating under Diagnostic Code 5284.

The Veteran's left knee disability, specifically patellofemoral chondromalacia, has been rated at 10 percent since September 2003. The VA determined that the current symptoms do not warrant a higher rating as his range of motion is within acceptable limits.

The Veteran's appeal for higher initial evaluations for her right thumb and right great toe disabilities was denied. The Board found that the current ratings of 10 percent are appropriate given the lack of unfavorable ankylosis, significant limitation of motion, or other functional impairment.

The Veteran's aortic insufficiency was first noted during service and is considered to have its onset in service, thus granting service connection for this heart disability on a direct basis.

The Board found that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder, including schizoaffective and psychotic disorders, was directly incurred in service due to its presence within one year of his discharge from active duty.

The Veteran's pension benefits were correctly adjusted for the one-year period between April 1, 2005, and April 1, 2006 based on income received in 2005. The RO reduced his pension from $846 per month to $719 and from $881 per month to $754 during the specified period.

The Veteran's thoracic scoliosis is currently rated at 60 percent, and the Board has determined that he meets the criteria for a TDIU due to his service-connected disability.

The Board found that the overpayment of disability compensation benefits was validly created due to the Veteran's fugitive felon status from April 20, 1995, until his warrant against him was cleared on April 23, 2008. The Board also determined that recovery of this overpayment would not be against equity and good conscience as it would not deprive the Veteran of basic necessities or defeat the purpose for which the benefits were intended.

The Veteran's residuals of a left hip replacement have been rated as 70 percent disabling since January 27, 2005. The Board found that the disability picture is adequately described by the current rating.

The Board has decided to remand the case for further development, including a VA examination and medical opinion regarding the Veteran's left hip disorder.

The Veteran's medical expenses for treatment at Charleston Area Medical Center from January 24 to 31, 2006 are approved as the condition was an emergency and no VA facility was available.

The Board has remanded the case for further development and adjudication, including obtaining a VA medical opinion regarding whether there were beds available at the VA Medical Center in Bay Pines on February 5, 2009. The appeal is currently considered 'mixed' as it involves both service connection and reimbursement issues.

The Veteran is seeking educational assistance under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The Board has determined that additional development is necessary to verify her service dates and whether she reenlisted or extended her initial period of active duty service.

The case is being remanded for additional development, including verification of the appellant's claimed active service in World War II and compliance with notice requirements under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a).

The Board has remanded the case due to an inadequate examination report, and a new VA examination is needed to assess the severity of any ventral hernia residuals since January 2004.