Other conditions decisions — 2014

The Board found that the Veteran's additional disability was not proximately due to carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, error in judgment, or similar instance of fault on the part of VA healthcare providers during his surgeries. The event causing the disability (infection and non-healing wound) was not reasonably foreseeable.

The Board has remanded the case due to the appellant's request for a videoconference hearing at the RO. The appeal is not about service connection and thus does not specify any conditions or issues related to service connection.

The Veteran's service-connected narcolepsy was characterized by an average of at least five to eight minor seizures weekly between October 7, 2004 and July 14, 2008. The Board granted a rating of 40 percent for this period.

The Veteran's appeal was denied as he did not meet the eligibility criteria for Post-9/11 GI Bill education benefits due to his service discharges and duration.

The Board has remanded the case due to the appellant's request for a videoconference hearing. The case will be returned to the RO after scheduling the requested hearing.

The Veteran's claims for service connection and increased rating are being remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining medical opinions and records.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding herbicide exposure in Thailand, and the issue of special monthly compensation is also being returned for further review.

The Veteran's lung disease, including emphysema, is being remanded for further examination and opinion regarding its relationship to asbestos exposure in service.

The Veteran's left leg disorder is found to have preexisted military service, and the examiner must state if the Veteran's military service aggravated the preexisting condition. The VA examiner's opinion was based on an inaccurate factual premise due to a lack of review of the claims file.

The Board has dismissed the appeal due to the death of the appellant.

The Board denied service connection for back and left hip pain, finding that the evidence did not establish a link to service or service-connected disability.

The Veteran's unauthorized medical expenses incurred at Memorial Hermann Hospital from June 30, 2011 to July 5, 2011 are denied as the VA facilities were feasibly available and a transfer was not considered reasonable.

The Board found that the Veteran's lower extremity neurological disability is not related to service or a service-connected condition, and denied his claim for service connection. The Veteran's low back disability was rated at 20% based on forward flexion of more than 30 degrees without ankylosis or incapacitating episodes.

The Board found that there was clear and unmistakable error in the June 1948 rating decision, which failed to consider separate ratings for bilateral scotoma of the eyes associated with service-connected bilateral nutritional amblyopia of the eyes. The Veteran's eye disabilities were rated at a single 10 percent level.

The Board denied the Veteran's request to reopen his claim of entitlement to service connection for residuals of a wound or injury to the left leg, finding that the submitted evidence was not new and material.

The Board has granted the Veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral shoulder and arm disabilities, finding that these conditions are related to his active military service.

The Board found that the Veteran's bilateral flatfoot disability was a congenital disease and did not undergo an increase in severity during service, thus denying his claim for service connection.

The Veteran's claim for educational assistance benefits under Chapter 30, Title 38 United States Code was denied because the delimiting date for the use of such benefits had expired due to administrative error. The Board found that equitable tolling could not be applied in this case.

The Board has granted the Veteran's petition to reopen his claim of service connection for a left cheek skin disorder, finding that new and material evidence has been received. The case is now remanded for further development.

The Board denied the appellant's petition to reopen his claim of basic eligibility for entitlement to VA benefits, finding that he did not have any period of recognized military service for VA benefits purposes.