Other conditions decisions — 2015

The Board has determined that the Veteran's idiopathic thrombocytopenia petechiae (ITP) was not caused by or aggravated by the medication used to treat her service-connected low back disability, and thus denied her claim for secondary service connection.

The VA determined that there is no current disability manifested by dizziness and blurred vision, and thus denied the Veteran's claim for service connection.

The Veteran's lung function is being evaluated, and additional medical records from his pulmonologist are needed to make a determination on the increased rating claim. The TDIU claim is also inextricably intertwined with the increased rating claim for squamous cell carcinoma of the left lower lobe status post resection.

The Veteran's gastroenteritis is rated at 30 percent, the highest available rating under the applicable diagnostic code, for symptoms of persistent epigastric distress with dysphagia, pyrosis, and regurgitation.

The Board has determined that the evidence is at least in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran's skin condition was incurred during his service, and therefore grants service connection for residuals of removal of moles (claimed as a skin condition).

The Board has reopened the Veteran's claim for service connection for a skin condition, but finds that there is no evidence to support the claim as his current diagnosis of xerosis is not related to his military service.

The Board has granted service connection for uterine fibroids and urinary incontinence with frequency, finding that the conditions are at least as likely as not incurred during active duty service.

The Veteran's claim for reimbursement of $12,975.21 for home modifications made between June and August 2008 is being remanded to the Los Angeles RO for clarification on whether reimbursement has been granted or denied, consideration of applicable policies related to home modifications in conjunction with the SAH program, and discussion of any reliance by the Veteran on statements from his VRC and Contract Counselor.

The Board is remanding the case to obtain missing information regarding the Veteran's fugitive felon status, specifically a warrant issued in San Diego, California, and records of his detention in Buffalo, New York.

The Board found that the Veteran did not sustain an in-service injury or disease resulting in a lost tooth, and thus is not entitled to service connection for a dental condition.

The Appellant is not eligible for increased DIC benefits as she is already receiving the maximum amount allowed by law.

The appeal has been dismissed as the benefit sought was fully granted by a June 2015 rating decision.

The Veteran's hiatal hernia with Barrett's Esophagitis has been rated at 30 percent, the maximum available under VA rating criteria.

The Board has decided to remand the case for additional development, including obtaining missing VA treatment records and providing a VA examination in connection with the Veteran's claims. The Veteran will be provided an opportunity to respond to the SSOC.

The Veteran's left hip disability has been rated at 10 percent since June 21, 2007. The VA examinations have shown limited abduction and inability to cross legs, but no limitation of extension or flexion that would warrant a higher rating.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral foot and hand nerve damage and pain are being remanded due to the need for a VA examination.

The claim has been reopened, but the new evidence does not establish service connection for the cause of death.

The Board found that the Veteran's bilateral flatfeet did not manifest until years after his military service and are not attributable to his military service.

The Board has determined that the appellant's daughter's income should be included in the calculation of her countable income, regardless of whether she is the Veteran's biological child or not. The case is REMANDED for the appellant to provide earnings/income information and medical expenses for both herself and her dependent daughter.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to the need for a VA examination and additional development of records, including SSA records.