Other conditions decisions — 2014

The Veteran's claim for service connection for a non-specified nerve disorder, claimed as due to exposure to harmful chemicals at Fort Greely, is being remanded for additional development.

The Board has found that there has not been substantial compliance with the mandates of a previous remand order and is therefore remanding the case for further development, including obtaining service treatment records and scheduling a VA examination to clarify any residuals from an abdominal abscess.

The Veteran requested to withdraw his appeal on the issue of service connection for an obsessive-compulsive disorder, and the Board has dismissed this claim.

The Veteran's male pattern baldness is granted service connection, and the effective date for impingement syndrome of the left shoulder has been advanced to September 2, 2010.

The Board found that the Veteran's left hand disorder is not related to her service-connected cervical spine disability and denied her claim.

The Board has remanded the case due to the Veteran's failure to attend scheduled VA examinations. The claim for service connection for left hand and arm disorders will be reconsidered after further development.

The Board finds that the Veteran's cardiovascular disease, including as secondary to herbicide exposure, did not have its clinical onset in service and is not otherwise related to active duty. The Veteran does not meet the criteria for service connection under any theory of entitlement.

The Veteran's claim for a higher rating for his service-connected aggravation of an osteochondral defect, right medial femoral condyle was granted. The effective date is not specified as the issue remains on appeal.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's residuals of a head injury were incurred in service and granted service connection for this condition.

The Board found no evidence of a cold injury during service and concluded that the Veteran's current foot disorder is not related to his military service.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including a VA examination to determine the etiology of the Veteran's bilateral eye disorder and whether it is related to active military service.

The Board found no evidence of a respiratory disability related to service exposure to asbestos and denied the claim for service connection. The VA examiner also determined that the Veteran's sternum condition is not related to service, as it was a developmental variant.

The Board has determined that the Veteran does not have a current disability of vision impairment with photosensitivity or a separate bilateral hand disability apart from residuals of a tuft fracture of the right thumb and service-connected cervical radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy. The VA examiner found no evidence of long-term complications related to injuries in service.

The Veteran's unauthorized medical expenses for treatment of muscle strain and pain were denied as the condition was not deemed an emergent situation, and VA facilities were considered feasibly available.

The Veteran's cervical spine disability was not shown to warrant a compensable rating prior to January 30, 1987. From January 30, 1987 to June 9, 1998, the disability warranted a 10 percent rating. Since April 19, 2001, the disability has not warranted a rating in excess of 20 percent.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's current left eye disability is more likely than not caused by an injury sustained during INACDUTRA on September 23, 1967.

The Veteran's left knee disability, characterized by degenerative joint disease and a tear of the posterior horns of the meniscus, is currently rated at 10 percent under Diagnostic Code 5010. The evidence does not support an increase in rating beyond this level.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for initial and increased ratings for calluses of his right and left feet, finding that the evidence did not support a compensable rating under the applicable diagnostic codes.

The Veteran's residuals of colon cancer are currently rated at 40 percent disabling, and the Board finds that a higher initial rating is not warranted. The Veteran also does not meet the criteria for TDIU as his disability does not preclude all forms of substantially gainful employment.

The Board has received notification of the appellant's request to withdraw their appeal, and thus the case is dismissed.