Other conditions decisions — 2014

The Veteran developed a pulmonary embolism as a result of his left shoulder surgery in November 2004. The VA medical team exercised reasonable care, and the risk of such an event was foreseeable. Therefore, compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 is denied.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's current left knee disability, diagnosed as degenerative joint disease, had its onset during service and is therefore granted service connection.

The Board found that the rating schedule is adequate to evaluate the Veteran's right inguinal hernia and there is no evidence of marked interference with employment or frequent periods of hospitalization, thus denying an extraschedular rating.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of a left hip replacement, as secondary to his service-connected right knee disability status post-knee replacement, is being remanded due to the inadequacy of the April 2009 VA examination.

The Board has remanded the case for an extended evaluation to determine if the Veteran's vocational goal is reasonably feasible. The claim will be readjudicated after this assessment.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to his failure to report for a VA examination. The case will be returned to the Board for further consideration.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of unauthorized dental expenses incurred on November 19, 2010 and February 9, 2010. The appeal is remanded to allow further development.

The Veteran underwent emergency hemiarthroplasty surgery on his right femoral neck at Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical Center in Boise, Idaho. The claim for payment was denied due to untimely submission of the claim. The case is now remanded to determine if the remaining criteria have been met.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining Social Security Administration records and scheduling a VA examination.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of a cholecystectomy, finding that his gallbladder condition is not related to his military service or a service-connected disability.

The Board found that the Veteran's gastrointestinal condition, including residuals of an abdominal injury during service, did not have its onset or be caused by his military service.

The Board finds that the evidence does not support a finding of service connection for colon cancer, as there is no medical opinion linking the condition to service or any related exposure. The appellant's claim is therefore denied.

The Board found no objective indications of a disability manifested by blurred vision and denied the Veteran's claim for service connection.

The Board has determined that the Veteran does not have genitourinary symptoms due to his service-connected low back disability and therefore, denied the claim for service connection.

The Veteran's claim for PTSD is granted as his service records show combat experience, and the medical evidence confirms a current diagnosis of PTSD related to this in-service stressor. Service connection for hypertension is denied.

The Board has determined that the recovery of the overpayment is not against equity and good conscience, thus granting the Veteran's request for a waiver.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's temporomandibular joint disorder first began in service and is related to active service, granting the claim for service connection.

The Veteran's second wife has raised a question of her own entitlement to apportionment of the Veteran's benefits during their pending divorce and separation. However, in December 2009, when the divorce became final, she requested that the claim be withdrawn. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC.

The Veteran's right foot fracture prior to December 9, 2010 is rated at 10 percent due to degenerative/traumatic changes of the fifth metatarsal.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for cognitive disorder, NOS was granted in a December 2013 rating decision. As this issue has been resolved and the Veteran no longer has an ongoing case or controversy regarding it, the Board lacks jurisdiction to review it.