Other conditions decisions — 2014

The Veteran's claims for an increased disability rating and SMC were denied by the Board. The issues are now remanded for further development.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for vitiligo, finding that there was no evidence of a nexus between his current condition and his military service or any service-connected disability.

The Board has remanded the case for further development due to a need for additional medical records and an examination.

The Veteran's left knee disability, characterized by pain and tenderness but with normal range of motion, does not meet the criteria for a higher rating than 10 percent.

Your initial rating for residuals of a left femur fracture has been increased to 20 percent effective July 23, 2010. The appeal is dismissed as the Veteran withdrew his appeal.

The Board has denied the appellant's claim for apportionment of the Veteran's VA benefits on behalf of his minor children, M.L. and J.L., finding that the Veteran was reasonably discharging his responsibility for their support and there is no evidence of financial hardship.

The Veteran's right knee disability is currently rated as 10 percent disabling, and his chronic cluster headaches are rated as noncompensable. The Board finds that neither condition warrants a higher rating.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including scheduling a hearing for the Veteran.

The Veteran's unauthorized medical expenses incurred at private facilities were not authorized by VA, and thus he is not eligible for payment or reimbursement under the applicable laws.

The Veteran's bilateral eye disability, including corneal abrasion, keratoconjunctivitis, nuclear sclerosis, and dry eye, is found to have manifested in service and is etiologically related to service. Therefore, the claim for service connection is granted.

The Veteran's granddaughter, A.M.M.B., is not considered his child for VA compensation purposes due to lack of adoption or legal status as a stepchild. Therefore, the claim for dependency allowance for A.M.M.B. for the purpose of VA compensation benefits is denied.

The Veteran's death was not service-connected, and he did not meet the criteria for burial benefits under any provisions.

The Veteran's claimed disabilities of the joints of the upper and lower extremities are not shown to have manifested within one year following service, and there is no evidence of a nexus between these conditions and his active service. The Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim.

The Board found that the Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date was without legal merit due to the finality of a December 1976 decision denying service connection, and no new and material evidence had been submitted within one year. The current claim for reopening the service connection issue was filed in February 2009.

The Veteran's claim for an increased rating for chronic glomerulonephritis was granted with an effective date of May 18, 2007. The earlier effective date of September 8, 2005 is based on the evidence showing that his kidney disability met criteria for a 60% rating as of that date.

The Board denied the claim for an effective date earlier than June 18, 2010 for the payment of death pension benefits as the appellant did not file her claim within one year after the Veteran's death in September 2005.

The appellant is not eligible for apportionment of the Veteran's disability compensation benefits as she was never his spouse and their divorce severed her dependent status.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities result in the loss of use of both lower extremities, effectively precluding locomotion without assistance. The Veteran is therefore eligible for specially adapted housing but not a special home adaptation grant.

The Board found that the Veteran's current rectal prolapse with rectal bleeding disability was not incurred in or aggravated by service, and may not be presumed to have been so incurred.

The Veteran has been reasonably discharging his responsibility for the support of his child C. during the appeal period, and thus an apportionment is denied.