Other conditions decisions — 2011

The VA has determined that the appellant did not have the required service to qualify for payment from the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund, and thus denied his claim.

The Veteran has a chronic pain disorder of the lower right extremity that he contends began during service and continues to this day. The Board finds sufficient evidence to grant service connection for this condition.

The appellant's claim for payment from the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund was denied as she did not have qualifying service that would qualify her for the benefit.

The Board found that the Veteran's heart murmur was present prior to her entry into service and did not worsen during service, thus denying her claim for service connection.

The Board found that there is no evidence of a current chronic ear disability, including otitis media, and thus denied the Veteran's claim for service connection.

The Veteran's disability compensation was reduced from 100% to 10%, effective the 61st day of his incarceration for a felony conviction. The overpayment created due to this reduction is $16,590.37.

The Board finds that the Veteran currently has right foot drop, which as likely as not resulted from VA surgery (right total hip arthroplasty in July 1994), and this additional disability was an event not reasonably foreseeable. Therefore, the criteria for entitlement to compensation benefits pursuant to 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 have been met.

The Board has remanded the case for scheduling a Travel Board hearing before the appellant can proceed with her appeal.

The Veteran's skin conditions were not incurred in or aggravated by his active service, nor may they be presumed to have been so incurred.

The Veteran's left facial nerve palsy, resulting from a July 2000 VA surgical treatment for parotidectomy, was not due to carelessness, negligence, or similar instance of fault on the part of VA.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for residuals of a back or spinal injury, as secondary to his service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The case is being remanded for further development and an opinion from a VA examiner regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran's current back disability.

The Board has remanded the case due to issues regarding apportionment of DIC benefits and procedural errors in handling the contested claim. The appellant's address needs clarification, and all interested parties must be notified of their rights.

The Veteran's claims for an increased evaluation and TDIU are being remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining VA treatment records and scheduling a new VA examination.

The Board found that the appellant was not entitled to recognition as the surviving spouse of the Veteran for purposes of VA benefits due to a separation lasting nearly 20 years, which did not meet the requirement of continuous cohabitation.

The Board has remanded the claims for further development due to the need for an autopsy report and other appropriate actions.

The Board found that the Veteran's non-service-connected pension benefits were correctly adjusted from September 30, 2003 to March 8, 2005 to include his spouse and her income. However, as of March 9, 2005, G.H.'s income should no longer be included in calculating the Veteran's pension award.

The Veteran is seeking an increased evaluation for his service-connected residuals of shell fragment wound to the abdomen, Muscle Group XIX, status post laparotomy. The case has been remanded due to a duty to assist and incomplete treatment records.

The Board has determined that additional evidence is needed to establish whether the Veteran's esophageal disease and muscle damage are related to his military service, particularly due to herbicide exposure in Vietnam. The case is being remanded for a VA examination.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has not been received to reopen the Veteran's claims for service connection for a bilateral leg disability and psychiatric disability (depression). The claims were previously denied in January 2002 and June 2004, respectively. New evidence submitted since these decisions does not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claims.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including a VA examination to assess his employability due to service-connected disabilities.