Other conditions decisions — 2015

The Veteran's appeal was denied as he has coverage under Medicare parts A & B, which precludes payment or reimbursement for unauthorized medical expenses.

The VA is required to review the Veteran's service records and determine if all his active duty time should be included in the calculation for Post-9/10 GI Bill benefits. The decision will then be based on this determination.

The Veteran's neurological impairment of the bilateral lower extremities is granted as secondary to his service-connected back disability, with a combined rating of 60 percent effective April 7, 2008.

The Board found that the Veteran's current bilateral foot and ankle conditions, including arthritis, gout, and fracture residuals, are not related to his military service. The weight of evidence indicates these conditions are due to age-related processes rather than an in-service injury or disease.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's service-connected left knee disability warrants a 20 percent rating under Diagnostic Code 5258, effective from the date of the August 2009 rating decision. A separate 10 percent rating for functional loss is also granted.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including a gastrointestinal examination and opinion regarding the Veteran's claimed disability.

The Veteran died in a private medical facility and did not die while properly hospitalized by VA. Therefore, the criteria for VA burial benefits are not met.

The Board found that the Veteran's preexisting low back condition existed prior to service and was not aggravated by service, thus denying service connection.

The Veteran's service connection claim for a left leg disability is being remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining medical records from Cornwall Regional Hospital and St. Ann's Bay Hospital.

The Board found that there is no evidence of a current disability manifesting in bone and joint pain, and thus denied the Veteran's claim for service connection. The cognitive disorder issue was not addressed as it pertained to an already adjudicated claim.

The Veteran's service connection claim for a vision condition other than decreased tear production has been granted. The Board also finds that the Veteran is entitled to TDIU on a schedular basis from July 30, 2010 forward.

The Board has dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's withdrawal of the appeal.

The Board has remanded the case for further development due to a lack of verification of the appellant's spouse's military service, and the need to seek verification from the Department of the Army.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for shortness of breath with syncope, to include respiratory and sinus disorders is denied. The issue of service connection for a psychiatric disorder other than PTSD (also claimed as service connection for a neurosis disorder/neurotic nervous condition) requires additional development.

The Veteran's claim for reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses incurred by private emergency transportation services on November 27, 2010 was denied because he had coverage under a health-plan contract (Medicare).

The Board has granted the Veteran's application to reopen his claim of service connection for laceration of the left little finger. The underlying claims, including those related to increased ratings and TDIU, are remanded for further development.

The Veteran's request for a videoconference hearing has been scheduled, but the notification was not sent to his new address in Tennessee. The case is being remanded to schedule the appellant for a Board videoconference hearing at the Memphis RO.

The Veteran's marriage to his spouse, P.J.G., is recognized under California law and remains valid. Therefore, the claim for additional compensation for a dependent spouse is granted.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including obtaining VAMC records and scheduling examinations to assess his left varicocele ligation and leg disabilities.

The Board has determined that the creation and amount of the overpayment debt need to be re-evaluated due to the Veteran's assertions regarding his divorce from his first wife in 1988.