Other conditions decisions — 2014

The Veteran's claim for service connection for a psychiatric disability, to include PTSD, is denied as he does not have a current diagnosis of PTSD or any other psychiatric disability. His personality disorder is not a disability for which service connection can be granted.

The Veteran's residuals of a traumatic iris sphincter tear to the left eye with a history of traumatic iritis and microhyphema are currently manifested by dryness without resultant visual impairment. The Board finds that a rating in excess of 10 percent is not warranted for this condition.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for further development, including obtaining medical records and providing the Veteran with a VA examination to determine if his current stroke residuals are related to carelessness or negligence on the part of VA. The issue regarding additional colon disability with infection will also be addressed.

The Veteran does not have current allergies or any current residuals of a claimed allergic reaction to vaccines in service. The Board finds that the evidence is insufficient to establish service connection for these conditions.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for a videoconference hearing at the RO, and correspondence should be sent to his new address in Columbus, Ohio.

The Board has reopened the Veteran's claim for service connection for a skin condition, including as due to exposure to herbicides. However, the claim is being remanded for further development and consideration of whether there is a causal relationship between his current dermatitis and his military service.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded to the RO for initial development and adjudication of his claims, including entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability.

The Veteran's request for a Travel Board hearing has been advanced, but the requested hearing has not been scheduled. The case is being remanded to schedule the Veteran for a Travel Board hearing at the RO.

The Board denied the Appellant's claim for an increased special apportionment of the Veteran's VA disability benefits on behalf of their minor child A.K., finding that her income and expenses did not justify a higher amount than $555.00.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete development and requests for additional examinations. The Veteran's claims for service connection, increased ratings, and TDIU are pending.

The appellant is not recognized as the surviving spouse of the Veteran for VA death benefits due to her divorce from the Veteran at the time of his death.

The Veteran is seeking compensation under the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for additional disability of gynecomastia due to VA treatment from 2001 to 2007 at the VAMC in St. Louis, Missouri. The Board has decided that a remand is necessary to obtain an addendum VA medical opinion regarding negligent follow-up care and to ensure all relevant records are obtained.

The Board found that the appellant's net worth was excessive for receiving non-service-connected VA death pension benefits, and thus denied her claim.

The Veteran's claim for nonservice-connected pension benefits is denied because he did not serve during a period of war, and therefore does not meet the legal criteria for eligibility.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to scheduling issues, and no specific service connection or rating information is provided.

The appellant's spouse had no qualifying service as a member of the Philippine Commonwealth Army, including recognized guerrillas, in the service of the United States Armed Forces. Therefore, she does not qualify for VA death benefits.

The Board found that the overpayment was validly created due to the Veteran's failure to report changes in income and medical expenses. The decision concluded that recovery of the debt would not result in undue hardship, but denied the waiver request as the Veteran did not meet the criteria for financial hardship.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining VA and private medical records and requesting authorization from the Veteran to obtain her treatment records from Trinity Medical Center.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining records from Dr. Stubbs and providing an addendum opinion regarding whether the Veteran currently has or had a disability due to HPV.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for an extension of her DEA benefits beyond October 28, 2008 due to lack of evidence showing a physical or mental disability prevented her from pursuing education.