Other conditions decisions — 2015

The Veteran's right great toe disability is being remanded for further evaluation and additional medical records to be obtained.

The Veteran's left orbital injury has been rated as a 10 percent disability since June 22, 2006.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities are not considered to be permanent and total in nature, thus the appellant is not eligible for DEA benefits under Chapter 35.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's bilateral hip degenerative joint disease, status post total bilateral hip arthroplasty, is not service-connected as it was not incurred or aggravated by service and is not secondary to a service-connected disability.

The Board finds that the Veteran's current right foot disability, including gout, is not related to service and thus denied his claim for service connection.

The Board has determined that the decision declaring the Veteran rehabilitated for purposes of VR&E was proper, including the determination that an additional program for self-employment is not warranted for a non-profit business. The appeal related to the discontinued status of his VR&E benefits must be denied.

The Board has vacated the previous decision denying service connection for a neurological disorder, diagnosed as vascular dementia and residuals, status post right cerebrovascular accident with encephalomalacia. The case is now remanded to the AOJ for further development.

The Veteran's service-connected foot disabilities have not resulted in loss of use of the feet, and therefore do not warrant a higher rating.,Both feet are currently rated at 30 percent under Diagnostic Code 5284 for 'other' foot injuries.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claim for additional development due to insufficient medical opinions regarding his left eye disability and scars above the left eye.

The Veteran's residuals of a staphylococcus infection, including shortness of breath, muscle loss of the upper extremities, a ventral hernia, and necessity to limit activities, are considered additional disabilities caused by VA medical treatment without reasonable foreseeability. The Board finds that these conditions were not due to willful misconduct and proximately resulted from carelessness or negligence in providing medical treatment.

The Veteran's degenerative changes of the thoracic spine are rated at 10 percent since February 1, 2010.

The Veteran's right eye disorders, including a choroidal nevus and vitreous condensation with RPE hyperplasia, do not warrant a rating greater than 10 percent.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for colon polyps, including as due to exposure to ionizing radiation, is granted.

The Board has remanded the case due to a request for a hearing, and no rating decision or service connection determination was made.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the claim for service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death. The case is now REMANDED for additional development, including obtaining VA treatment records and a medical opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran's cause of death.

The Veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses incurred at a private facility on December 29, 2009 is denied as he did not receive prior authorization from VA and had no recent VA treatment within the required timeframe.

The Veteran's right eye blindness following cataract surgery in December 2007 is not considered to be a result of VA carelessness, negligence, or similar instance of fault. The Board finds that the event was not reasonably foreseeable.

The Board denied the claim for service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death, finding that there was no probative medical evidence to establish a link between his pancreatic cancer and his military service, including herbicide exposure.

The Veteran's laryngeal cancer is not service-connected, and his TDIU claim was denied as his service-connected disabilities do not meet the schedular requirements for a TDIU rating.

The Board finds that the appellant does not have a diagnosed form or manifestation of spina bifida, and therefore, benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1805 for a child born with spina bifida are denied. The claim for benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1815 as a child who suffers from disability from birth defects other than spina bifida is also denied.