Other conditions decisions — 2018

The Veteran's service-connected anemia is rated at a 10 percent disability rating throughout the appeal period.

The Board denied the claim of service connection for benign prostatic enlargement with voiding dysfunction as secondary to diabetes mellitus II, finding that there is no evidence showing aggravation beyond its natural progression by the service-connected condition.

The Veteran's unauthorized medical expenses for a laparoscopic cholecystectomy and umbilical herniorrhaphy on April 18-19, 2014 are denied as the treatment was not provided in an emergency setting and no prior authorization from VA was obtained.

The Veteran is found competent to handle the disbursement of VA benefits, including handling their own VA funds.

The Veteran's claim for an increased rating for his service-connected trochanteric bursitis of the right hip is remanded due to a need for a new VA examination to assess the severity of his disability.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to the need for additional development, including obtaining private treatment records and scheduling an addendum VA medical opinion regarding whether the Veteran's service-connected right shoulder condition aggravated his Paget's disease.

The Veteran's neck strain and spondylolisthesis have been granted initial ratings of 30 percent and 40 percent, respectively, effective February 11, 2007.

The Board denied service connection for deviated nasal septum and left thoracic outlet syndrome, finding no evidence of a nexus between the current disabilities and in-service events or injuries.

The Board has granted the appellant's claim for a refund of $1,750.00 from his VEAP contributions due to inconsistencies in the record regarding which RO might have issued any refund check.

The claim of service connection for a back injury and a neck condition is being remanded due to the need for additional VA treatment records. The Veteran's current diagnoses and history of pain suggest that he may have received VA treatment since 2012, which should be obtained.

The Board has granted service connection for cancer of the salivary glands, finding that it is related to the Veteran's military service.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the Appellant's service separation and eligibility for VA home loan guaranty benefits. The AOJ is required to obtain his service personnel file and records related to his April 1999 grant of eligibility.

The Veteran's VRAP benefits were denied as she was not enrolled in a full-time educational program by March 17, 2014.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the etiology of the Veteran's cervical spine disorder, specifically whether it is directly related to service or caused by his service-connected lumbar spine disorder.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to the need for a medical opinion regarding whether the Veteran's colorectal cancer is related to Agent Orange exposure during service.

The Veteran's hysterectomy is granted as service-connected due to symptoms that began during service. The Board also grants a 30% evaluation for moderate incomplete paralysis of the left (non-dominant) lower radicular group nerves since May 18, 2017.

Your claim for service connection for a temporomandibular joint disorder has been granted, but the appeal is dismissed because it was already fully awarded.

The Veteran's appeal for a compensable disability rating for hyperhidrosis of the feet prior to August 23, 2011, and in excess of 10 percent since that date has been dismissed due to his death.

The Veteran's claim for special monthly compensation on account of the need for aid and attendance or being housebound has been dismissed due to the appellant's death.

The Board requested a specialist opinion regarding the Veteran's claim of service connection for pulmonary embolism secondary to his service-connected ischemic heart disease. The opinion was received and considered, but the Veteran submitted additional evidence without waiving RO consideration. Therefore, the case is being remanded to consider this new evidence.