Other conditions decisions — 2012

The Board found no evidence of a current diagnosis of a chronic skin disorder and concluded that the Veteran's claim for service connection must fail due to lack of credible historical account.

The Board found that the Veteran's enuresis was a preexisting condition that did not worsen during service, and thus denied his claim for service connection.

The VA denied the Veteran's claim for a higher rating of his postoperative residuals of left upper lobectomy, maintaining the current 30 percent disability rating.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for clarification regarding his representation and information on available hearing options. The claims will be re-adjudicated after these actions.

The Board finds that the Veteran's ankylosing spondylitis is not related to his military service and therefore does not meet the criteria for service connection.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for a video conference hearing. The claim of entitlement to increased non-service-connected VA pension benefits remains pending.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for a prostate disorder is being remanded due to the need for additional medical records and verification of his military service.

The Board denied the appellant's eligibility for restoration of DIC benefits as a remarried widow, finding she did not meet the legal criteria due to her remarriage at age 25.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's bilateral DJD of the hips was incurred during his active service and grants entitlement to service connection.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's prepyloric antral gastric ulcers were incurred during his second period of service and granted service connection for a gastrointestinal disorder, including a peptic/gastric ulcer.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim of service connection for a skin condition. The Veteran's bilateral foot disorder is being remanded for further development, including a VA examination.

The Board has determined that further development is needed for all issues on appeal, including a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's diplopia, the current severity of his service-connected vascular and tension headaches, and whether he is unemployable due to his service-connected disabilities.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for esophageal cancer and an increased rating for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran's current esophagus disability is not considered to be related to his military service, and there was no evidence of continuity of symptoms since service. For the increased rating claim, the Veteran's hearing loss did not meet the criteria for a higher rating prior to January 21, 2010, but has met the criteria since that date.

The Board has remanded the case due to unclear marital status and potential eligibility for VA death pension benefits. Further development is needed to determine if the appellant was permanently incapable of self-support prior to age 18.

The Veteran's death was not proximately caused by any error in judgment, carelessness, negligence, or similar instance of fault on the part of VA, or an event that was not reasonably foreseeable as a result of VA medical treatment.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings for excision of basal cell carcinoma and recurrent actinic keratosis are being remanded due to the need for additional medical examination and review of VA records.

The Board has decided to remand the case for further action due to incomplete records and need for a supplemental opinion from a VA physician regarding when the Veteran could have been safely transferred to a VA facility.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded due to the need for further development of his left hip disability claim, including obtaining additional medical records and providing supplemental comments from a VA examiner.

The Board dismissed the appeal due to the death of the appellant, and no jurisdiction remains for further action.

The Board has determined that additional development is necessary due to discrepancies in the appellant's monthly expenses and income, as well as a potential decrease in her net worth. The case is therefore being remanded for further action.