Other conditions decisions — 2018

The Board has determined that a new examination is needed to address the Veteran's claim for service connection for concussion and head injury, as the previous examination did not adequately consider his credible statements regarding in-service injuries.

The Veteran's currently diagnosed right eye status post cornea transplant, herpetic keratitis, bilateral cataracts, blepharitis, and dry eye is not shown to be causally or etiologically related to any disease, injury, or incident in service.

The appellant does not have the required active service to be considered for non-service connected pension benefits.

The Veteran and his step-daughters used more than 48 months of combined DEA benefits and Post-9/11 benefits. The maximum aggregate period for which educational assistance may be received has been reached, thus denying the Appellant's request for Post-9/11 GI Bill education benefits.

The Board has decided that the case should be remanded for further development, including obtaining medical records and providing a VA medical opinion regarding whether the Veteran's service-connected disabilities contributed to his death.

The Veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 is denied as there is no evidence of additional disability resulting from VA treatment on April 15, 2013.

The Board found no evidence of chronic residuals from a concussion sustained during service, and thus denied the claim for service connection.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's loss of teeth is due to exposure to ionizing radiation, and service connection for this condition is granted.

The Veteran's medical expenses incurred at Salem Cardiovascular Associates on August 7, 2014 are denied as the services were not authorized in advance by VA and did not meet the criteria for emergency treatment.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including a VA examination to address service connection for myositis and whether the Veteran's PTSD is related to or caused by her reported musculoskeletal pain.

The Veteran's claims for higher ratings for obsessive compulsive disorder and gastrointestinal residuals of intestinal surgery, as well as his claim for a TDIU, were denied by the Board. The denial is based on the current disability ratings assigned.

The Board has determined that the Veteran does not have a current disability of otitis media or sleep disorder, and finds no evidence to support service connection for either condition.

The Board found that the Veteran's peripheral neuropathy of bilateral lower extremities did not originate in service, within a year of service, and is not otherwise etiologically related to his active service, including conceded exposure to herbicides like Agent Orange. As such, the claim for service connection was denied.

The Veteran's active duty service does not meet the requirements for eligibility under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, and therefore his claim is denied.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development and to issue a supplemental statement of the case. The Veteran's claim is currently pending before the RO.

The Veteran's claim for an effective date prior to January 5, 2009 for the grant of service connection of recurrent adhesions and status post lysis with omentectomy was denied as there is no indication she intended to file a claim for this condition prior to January 5, 2009.

The Board has remanded the case due to new evidence received and a need for further development before service connection can be considered.

The Veteran is granted a 10% disability rating for chronic suppurative otitis media and mastoiditis, effective from September 10, 1990. The TDIU claim is also granted prior to January 17, 2012.

The Board has granted the appellant's request for a waiver of recovery of her overpayment of DIC benefits in the amount of $58,394. The debt was properly created due to her failure to inform VA of her remarriage and she is at fault in its creation. However, repayment would cause undue financial hardship.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for ulcers and papular urticaria with lymphohistiocystic symptomatology, as well as his claim for an increased disability rating for a skin disorder. The evidence did not support these claims.