Other conditions decisions — 2012

The Veteran's claim for service connection for polysubstance abuse is denied as there is no current evidence of a disability and the Board finds that his current polysubstance abuse is not related to his service-connected PTSD.

The Board has remanded the case for further development and consideration of issues related to service connection, effective date determination, and dental trauma.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining medical records and providing an examination to determine if any current eye disabilities are related to service.

The Veteran's claim for an initial, noncompensable rating for residuals of testicular trauma was granted by the RO in August 2011. The Veteran has not appealed this decision.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for peroneal nerve palsy with left foot drop, to include as due to herbicide exposure, is being remanded for additional development and consideration.

The Board has determined that the Veteran does not have residuals of rheumatic fever due to disease or injury incurred in service. The preexisting condition was not aggravated by active service.

The Veteran's right eye retinopathy is found to be related to his service-connected diabetes. The left eye retinopathy is not currently present.

The Veteran's educational assistance benefits claim for vocational flight training in August 2005 was denied as he did not meet the eligibility requirements due to lack of a valid second-class medical certificate on the first day of his course.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for multiple myeloma was denied as there is no evidence of exposure to herbicides or other conditions that could support a presumption. The Board found the Veteran did not have service in Vietnam and thus, he cannot be presumed exposed to Agent Orange.

The Board finds that the Veteran's skin rash of the groin, feet, back and chest is related to his active military service and grants entitlement to service connection.

The Board found that the Veteran's left arm disability, characterized by numbness and tingling, did not have a diagnosed pathology or basis for presumptive service connection. The claim was denied as there is no evidence of an undiagnosed illness or chronic disability.

The Veteran's claim for TDIU was denied as his service-connected varicose veins did not meet the schedular requirements, and no extraschedular rating could be assigned due to lack of evidence showing he is unemployable by reason of his service-connected disability.

The Veteran's claim for an extension of the delimiting date beyond August 7, 2008 for Chapter 30 educational assistance benefits is denied as there was no documentation showing she was physically or mentally incapable of pursuing an education program.

The Board has determined that there is no current evidence of a left hip disability, and thus service connection cannot be established.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for specially adapted housing and a special home adaptation grant, finding that he did not meet the eligibility criteria based on his service-connected disabilities.

The Board has remanded the case for further research on potential asbestos exposure during service, as the Veteran was present on a ship that underwent an overhaul with known asbestos exposure.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of medical services provided at Arnot Ogden Medical Center on June 13, 2010 due to lack of prior authorization and because the treatment was not deemed an emergency by VA.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for further examination and readjudication due to the need to determine if Muscle Groups XI and XII affect motion of the same joint or different joints.

The Veteran seeks reimbursement for private medical expenses incurred on December 6, 2004. The claim was initially denied due to the condition not meeting the criteria for an emergency under VA regulations. The Board finds that further development is needed, including obtaining records from a VA facility and clarifying the distance to nearest VA facilities.

The Veteran's appeal is denied as the medical condition for which he sought emergency treatment was not a medical emergency and VA facilities were feasibly available.