Other conditions decisions — 2013

The Veteran requested to withdraw his appeal, and the Board has dismissed it.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for pain and weakness in the lower extremities is being remanded due to inadequate examination. The examiner was not able to provide a clear opinion on the etiology of these symptoms.

The Board has determined that the appellant is the surviving spouse of the Veteran for VA purposes and meets the criteria for DIC benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1318.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for further development regarding an earlier effective date for a 100 percent evaluation for organic mood disorder and organic amnestic disorder as a residual of head trauma. The issue involves determining if there was clear and unmistakable error in a previous rating decision.

The Veteran does not have a disability manifested by cracked teeth or lost teeth that is proximately due to or the result of his service-connected PTSD. The Board finds that the dental condition was less likely than not caused by bruxism related to PTSD.

The Board denied the claim for service connection for the cause of death and the TDIU for accrued benefits purposes due to lack of evidence showing that the veteran's service-connected PTB was a significant contributing factor to his death.

The case is being remanded for further evidentiary development due to the retirement of the Veterans Law Judge who conducted the prior hearing and the Veteran's request for a new videoconference Board hearing at the RO.

The Board found that the Veteran's arthritis of both hands is not related to his service or any service-connected condition, and thus denied his claim for service connection.

The Board has determined that the decedent did not have recognized service for VA purposes and therefore does not meet the basic eligibility requirements for VA benefits.

The Veteran's service-connected gastric ulcer disability was rated at 20 percent since October 1, 2003. The Board found that the disability warranted a higher rating during the period from October 1, 2003 to January 21, 2010, but not after that date.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for liver and stomach disabilities, finding no evidence of a current disability or link to service.

The Veteran's right shoulder disability (bursitis) was rated at 20 percent from July 22, 2009. The evidence showed that the condition caused pain and limited range of motion to a degree that warranted this rating.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including obtaining records from Hillcrest Medical Center and preparing a dose estimate based on the Veteran's radiation exposure in service.

The Veteran's service-connected residuals of a fractured mandible, left side, were rated at 30 percent effective May 2, 2012. The disability is characterized by pain and limited range of motion.

The Board determined that the Appellant does not meet the basic eligibility requirements for VA disability benefits and is not eligible for a one-time payment from the FVEC Fund.

The Veteran claims that he was denied appropriate medical care for a cerebrovascular accident (CVA or stroke) and seeks compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151. The case is being remanded to obtain additional private treatment records from Doctors Hospital in Groves, Texas.

The Veteran is seeking service connection for arthritis and gastrointestinal disability, both claimed as secondary to his service-connected psoriasis. The Board has determined that additional development is needed.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for recognition as the surviving spouse of the Veteran, finding that there was no formal marriage and that the Veteran did not hold himself out to be married to the appellant.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for a one-time payment from the FVEC Fund because he did not have qualifying military service as a member of the Philippine Commonwealth Army, including recognized guerrillas, in the service of the United States Armed Forces.

The Board found that recovery of the overpayment would not be against equity and good conscience, as the Veteran was at fault in creating the debt due to her failure to notify VA of her divorce.