Other conditions decisions — 2015

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for pulmonary nodules due to exposure to ionizing radiation or herbicides, including Agent Orange. The Board also found that his hearing loss did not warrant an initial compensable rating.

The Veteran's claimed colon polyps/cancer are not shown to be causally or etiologically related to his active military service, including presumed in-service herbicide exposure. The Board finds that the claim for service connection is denied.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete information regarding the Appellant's income from February 1, 2008, to March 1, 2010. The VA Pension Management Center (PMC) is instructed to obtain this information and readjudicate the claim.

The Board found that the appellant's net worth was excessive for the purposes of qualifying for VA death pension benefits and denied her claim.

The Veteran's appeal has been withdrawn, and the case is dismissed.

The Board denied service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death due to lack of new and material evidence, as the appellant's statements are redundant of previous contentions.

The Veteran's skin disorder, including his basal cell carcinoma, did not manifest in service or for many decades thereafter. The most probative evidence establishes that his remote skin symptoms are unrelated to service.

The Board has determined that there is not sufficient evidence to establish a connection between the Veteran's current skin disorder of the chest and his military service or a service-connected disability. The claim for service connection is therefore denied.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development to determine if the treatment at Blue Mountain Hospital was necessary due to a medical emergency and whether VA facilities were not feasibly available.

The Board has decided to remand the case for further development, including obtaining private treatment records and an addendum opinion from a VA examiner.

The Veteran's claim for educational assistance under the MGIB is denied as he did not meet the eligibility criteria based on his service records and participation in the VEAP.

The Veteran's service-connected muscle damage, left upper arm, due to gunshot wound, is currently rated at 20 percent effective February 7, 2015. The Board finds that the evidence does not support a higher rating prior to this date.

The Board dismissed the appeal due to the death of the appellant, and no decision was made on the overpayment issue.

The Veteran's claim for a higher rating for residuals of a compression fracture of T12 with arthritis was denied. The Board found that the evidence did not show forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine of 30 degrees or less, nor ankylosis, which are required for a higher rating under the applicable VA rating criteria.

For the period prior to September 23, 2008, a rating of 20 percent is granted for residuals of a right foot injury.,From September 23, 2008, to July 6, 2013, no higher rating is warranted as the disability does not meet criteria for a 30 percent rating under DC 5278 (pes cavus with marked contraction of plantar fascia).,Since July 6, 2013, a rating of 30 percent is granted for residuals of a right foot injury.

The Veteran's muscle group I, left trapezius strain has been rated at 10 percent since the initial grant of service connection. The Board found that her condition more nearly approximates moderate impairment but not moderately severe or higher.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for scleroderma and a pulmonary disorder are being remanded due to the need for additional medical examinations and development of records.

The Veteran is currently incarcerated, preventing him from being in a household with his stepchildren (I and A). As such, the Appellant's claim for apportionment of the Veteran's disability compensation benefits on behalf of her children is denied.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development to obtain complete clinical records of all evaluations and/or specialist consultations, and treatment the Veteran received at VA facilities between February 2009 and April 2009. The appellant's claim will be readjudicated based on the new evidence.

The Veteran's service is not considered wartime service, and therefore he does not meet the eligibility requirements for nonservice-connected pension benefits.