Other conditions decisions — 2018

The Veteran's current residuals of a right hand fracture and dislocation are found to be the result of an in-service injury, which is not considered willful misconduct. Service connection for these conditions has been granted.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for prostatitis is remanded due to the need for medical clarification regarding whether he has a prostate disability and if so, whether it began during his military service.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for loss of use of the legs, secondary to his COPD and emphysema, is remanded. The Board also found that he is eligible for a special home adaptation grant due to his permanent and total disability rating for service-connected bronchitis and emphysema (COPD).

The Board has determined that a VA examination is needed to determine if the Veteran's xanthomatosis of the eyelids is due to a congenital defect or an in-service injury, and to provide an opinion on whether it is related to service.

The Board has denied service connection for hallux rigidus of the left foot and hyperkeratotic lesions of the bilateral feet as there is no evidence that these conditions are related to active duty service.

The Veteran's claim for non-service-connected pension benefits was granted on March 29, 2013. The Board denied a request for an earlier effective date.

The Veteran's psychiatric disability, schizoaffective disorder, was increased to a 100% rating effective March 21, 2012. The claim for increase was received within one year of the date of the hospital admission where the Veteran required medical sedation due to agitation.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to the need for a medical examination regarding the Veteran's right great toe injury.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to discrepancies in income information provided by the appellant's custodian, specifically regarding income from the U.S. Civil Service and Supplemental Medical Insurance premiums.

The Veteran's service connection claims for residuals of a shell fragment wound, right leg, muscle groups X, XI and XII are granted.

The Veteran's death claim for burial benefits was denied because the appellant did not provide evidence that she used her personal funds to pay for the funeral and transportation expenses related to the Veteran's death.

The Veteran's substantive appeal was timely filed as he called the RO to request status updates and submitted his VA Form 9 within one week of receiving a copy of the September 2015 Statement of the Case (SOC). The Board found that the presumption of regularity in mailing the SOC had been rebutted, thus accepting the Veteran's substantive appeal as timely filed.

The Board denied the Appellant's claim for accrued benefits because she did not file a timely application within one year of her mother's death.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's CLL/SLL may be related to exposure to ionizing radiation during service, and therefore remanded for further development.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for left leg amputation, Charcot's disease of the right foot, residuals of neck injury, residuals of right leg injury (hip pain), and residuals of a back injury as these conditions are not etiologically related to service.

The Veteran's claims for an initial disability rating and a total disability rating based on individual unemployability have been dismissed due to his death.

The Board denied the Veteran's son C.C.'s claim for recognition as a helpless child due to permanent incapacity for self-support before reaching age 18, finding that the evidence did not show he was incapable of self-support prior to his 18th birthday.

The Board has decided that further development is needed to determine if the Veteran's cause of death was related to his service, specifically a Grade II mitral systolic murmur noted in his service treatment records.

The Veteran's service-connected earlobe cysts are confirmed, but there is no current evidence of dyspnea.

The Board has determined that the overpayment of DEA benefits was properly created and is a valid debt. However, the request for a waiver of this overpayment was not timely filed as there is no record of the November 2, 2011 letter notifying the Appellant of her debt.