Other conditions decisions — 2015

The Board has remanded the case due to missing VA treatment records from 2011, and the claim for a non-service connected pension is pending.

The Veteran's service is not considered to be in Vietnam, and therefore does not meet the requirements for nonservice-connected pension benefits.

The Board found that the appellant was not entitled to DEA benefits beyond March [redacted], 2012 due to limitations on extending the delimiting date past her 31st birthday.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for increased ratings for hammer toes of both feet to the RO for additional development.

The Veteran's condition did not stabilize until his discharge on April 17, 2012. The Board finds that reimbursement of medical expenses incurred from April 16 to April 17 is warranted.

The Board denied service connection for a gynecological disability, including endometriosis, vaginitis, and cystitis. The Veteran's claims were not supported by the evidence presented.

The Veteran's claim for reimbursement of unauthorized emergency medical expenses was denied because he did not meet the criteria for payment under VA regulations, specifically that he must have been enrolled in the VA health care system and received VA medical services within the 24-month period preceding the treatment.

The Veteran's service connection claims for swollen joints of the lower extremities, skin disability, left foot DJD, left ankle strain, and folliculitis have all been denied. The Board finds that there is no evidence linking these conditions to his military service.

The Board denied the waiver of overpayment for Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits in the amount of $13,509.66 due to bad faith on the part of the appellant.

The Board has remanded the case for a VA examination to determine if the Veteran's mitral valve prolapse is related to service, including herbicide exposure. The examiner should address whether it is at least as likely as not that any current cardiac disability was caused or aggravated by active service.

The Veteran's reported fungus of the toes and ears is not related to active service, and therefore, his claim for service connection is denied.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining opinions regarding VA's duty of care and whether there was negligence in recommending a CABG procedure due to the Veteran's previous head injury.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's service-connected deviated septum does not meet the criteria for a compensable evaluation, as it does not result in 50 percent obstruction of the nasal passage on both sides or complete obstruction on one side.

The Board found that the Veteran's scoliosis of the thoracic spine was a developmental defect and not aggravated by service. The gynecological disorders were also found to be pre-existing and not aggravated by service.

The Veteran's memory loss disability is not service connected as it did not originate during his military service and there is no evidence of a nexus between the current condition and any in-service events or conditions, including Agent Orange exposure.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining opinions from a VA examiner regarding the etiology of his multiple sclerosis and whether it was caused or aggravated by his service-connected conditions.

The Board has determined that the withholding of separation pay in the amount of $30,794.26 was proper and required by law.

The Board has remanded the case due to a need for clarification on whether the Veteran's heart disability pre-existed service and was aggravated by service. The Veteran is seeking service connection for his current heart condition.

The Board has remanded this case due to new evidence added since the last Supplemental Statement of the Case, and the Veteran's claim for service connection for a dental disorder secondary to his service-connected esophageal carcinoma of the epiglottis is pending.

The Board found that the April 2006 rating decision which granted separate 10 percent evaluations for DJD of both knees was clearly and unmistakably erroneous due to unlawful pyramiding, as both conditions were predicated on loss of motion.