Other conditions decisions — 2013

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for further development, including a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his right elbow condition.

The Veteran's cause of death was not due to a service-connected condition, and the cancers were not attributable to Agent Orange exposure. The Board denied service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death.

The Veteran's right ovarian cysts were not manifested by symptoms that required continuous treatment prior to March 12, 2007. Therefore, an initial compensable rating is denied.

The Board has determined that the appellant cannot be considered the Veteran's surviving spouse for purposes of receiving dependency and indemnity compensation due to a lack of formal marriage recognition in Kentucky.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for a one-time payment from the FVEC Fund due to lack of service as a member of the Philippine Commonwealth Army, including recognized guerrillas, in the service of the U.S. Armed Forces.

The Board has determined that a timely substantive appeal was not received in connection with the April 2009 rating decision which denied a claim to reopen a claim for service connection for a left eye pterygium.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for one-time payment from the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund due to a lack of qualifying service.

The Board found that the appellant was married after November 1, 1990, which rendered him ineligible for DIC benefits based on helpless child status. Therefore, the grant of DIC benefits was deemed clearly and unmistakably erroneous and was properly severed.

The Board found that the Veteran's current right leg nerve damage is not related to his service, and denied his claim for service connection.

The Veteran's neurological complications and visual impairment are found to be related to his service-connected diabetes mellitus. The disability rating for diabetes mellitus with impotency is maintained at 20 percent.

The Veteran's service-connected adjustment disorder with depressed mood is mild and controlled by continuous medication; additional psychiatric symptomatology has been attributed to separate, non-service-connected disabilities which are not manifestations of or otherwise intertwined with the Veteran's service-connected condition.

The Veteran's mood disorder is currently rated at 30 percent, and the Board denied a higher rating. The case was remanded multiple times due to procedural issues.

The Board found that the Veteran does not have a dental disorder for which compensation can be authorized, and therefore denied his claim of service connection.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including obtaining additional VA and private treatment records, scheduling a VA examination to evaluate the Veteran's low back disability, and considering entitlement to a TDIU under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b).

The Board found that the Veteran's eye disabilities, including blepharitis, dry eye, and pinguecula, were not related to his service. The VA examiner concluded these conditions are more likely due to aging and environmental factors rather than inservice injuries.

The Board finds that the Veteran's peptic ulcer disease was diagnosed and manifested to a compensable degree within one year of his separation from active service, granting entitlement to service connection.

The Veteran's current lung disease was not incurred or aggravated in service and it may not be presumed to have been incurred therein.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded to obtain a VA examination and medical opinion regarding the etiology of his peripheral vascular insufficiency, including whether it is related to service-connected generalized anxiety disorder or presumed in-service herbicide exposure.

The Veteran's surviving spouse is not eligible for death pension benefits due to excessive income and a reasonably large estate.

The Board found that the Veteran's astigmatism and myopia are considered refractive error and congenital defect, for which service connection may not be established. The preponderance of evidence does not show a superimposed eye disability upon the pre-existing refractive error during or after service.