Other conditions decisions — 2011

The Veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 was denied as there is no evidence that his current right wrist and hand disabilities are due to VA care, treatment, or examination.

The Veteran's varicose veins of the left leg and right leg have been rated at 40 percent since September 5, 2002. The evidence shows persistent edema and stasis pigmentation or eczema in both legs.

The Board finds that the Veteran's skin disability is not related to his active service, including as secondary to herbicide exposure. The preponderance of evidence does not support a finding that the skin disability began during or was aggravated by service.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for eligibility to VA death benefits, finding that her spouse had no service as a member of the Philippine Commonwealth Army and thus was not eligible for VA benefits.

The Board has decided to remand the case for additional development of evidence, including obtaining missing service treatment records and VA/privately held medical records. The Veteran's right knee injury is presumed during combat service, but a VA examination is needed to determine if it caused his current conditions.

The Board found that the Veteran's claimed heart disability was not incurred or aggravated by service and denied his claim.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient nexus opinions regarding the cause of death and service connection for esophageal cancer. The appellant's claim will be returned to the RO for further development.

The Veteran's appeal was dismissed due to his death, and the Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this claim.

The Veteran incurred unauthorized medical expenses for treatment on December 22, 2004. The Board found that the care was rendered in a medical emergency and VA facilities were not feasibly available, thus meeting the criteria for reimbursement under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1728.

The appellant is not the Veteran's surviving spouse for VA death pension, DIC, and accrued benefit purposes.

The Veteran's spouse is not eligible for Dependents' Educational Assistance benefits under Chapter 35 of Title 38 due to the expiration of her eligibility period and failure to apply for an extension.

The Board found that the Veteran's elevated cholesterol, blood enzymes and muscle enzymes are laboratory findings and not disabilities for VA compensation purposes. Therefore, service connection is denied.

The Veteran's request for waiver of recovery of an overpayment of VA pension benefits was denied by the Committee on Waivers and Compromises. The case is being remanded to the RO due to missing documents and incomplete information.

The Veteran's appeal for special monthly compensation based on the need for regular aid and attendance has been dismissed due to his death.

The Veteran's request for an extension of his delimiting date for Montgomery GI Bill education benefits was denied as none of the criteria for extension were met. The Board found that the legal requirements governing the payment of VA education benefits are specific and unambiguous, and thus the claim must be denied.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence was received to reopen the previously denied claim for service connection for residuals of broken fingers of the left hand. The Veteran's current left hand disorder is not related to his military service.

The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for service connection of ulcerative colitis was granted, with the effective date set at April 25, 2005.

The Board has ordered a remand to clarify Dr. T.-H.'s March 2003 medical opinion regarding the relationship between the Veteran's knee complaints and her service-connected bilateral foot disability.

The Board determined that recovery of the loan guaranty indebtedness in the amount of $24,952.27, plus interest would not be against equity and good conscience due to fault on the part of the Veteran.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including obtaining specific information about the Veteran's presence in Nagasaki and determining whether he participated in a radiation risk activity. The issue of service connection is being addressed based on new evidence.