Other conditions decisions — 2018

The Veteran's service-connected ruptured right quadricep muscle disability does not render him unemployable as the result of his service-connected disability.

The Veteran's claim for an effective date earlier than October 1, 2011, for the addition of his spouse as a dependent was denied. The Board found that VA did not receive notification of the Veteran's marriage to his current spouse until September 26, 2011, and thus could not grant an earlier effective date.

The case is REMANDED for a new VA examination to determine the current severity of the Veteran's supraventricular tachycardia, including diagnostic testing such as an ECG or Holter monitor. The appeal will be readjudicated after this additional development.

The Board has determined that a remand is necessary to ensure there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran's claim for a higher rating for his herniated nucleus pulposus L5.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's urinary frequency due to benign prostatic hypertrophy is not related to his active duty service and therefore denied his claim for service connection.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for alcohol abuse and drug abuse are denied as these conditions cannot be granted based on service incurrence or aggravation, and there is no evidence they were acquired secondary to a service-connected disability.

The Veteran claims his current eye disability, including cataracts, is due to exposure to bright search lights during service. The Board finds the evidence insufficient to decide on this claim and remands for a VA examination.

The Veteran's left shoulder disability is rated at 20 percent for limitation of motion, but the Board finds that a higher rating is not warranted as her range of motion does not meet the criteria for a 30 percent rating under Diagnostic Code 5202.

The Board has determined that there is no clear and unmistakable evidence showing a nexus between the Veteran's current right and left hip disorders and her service-connected right and left knee disorders, thus denying both claims for secondary service connection.

The Veteran's claim for a compensable evaluation for De Quervain's Tenosynovitis, with calcification, of the right hand is being remanded due to the need for additional development and examination.

The Board has determined that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of a skin disability, and thus, service connection for this condition is denied.,Service connection is granted for residuals of fracture of the right fifth metacarpal. The Veteran's left ring finger disability is found to be related to an injury sustained during active service.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for a swollen prostate, compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for right eye blindness, and SMC for aid and attendance and housebound benefits due to lack of evidence showing that these conditions are related to his military service or VA treatment.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for a cardiovascular disability, residuals of cerebrovascular accident (stroke), and residuals of left foot infection was denied. The denial is based on the absence of current diagnoses for these conditions.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's service-connected right and left foot disabilities render him unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation, warranting TDIU.

The Veteran does not have a dental disability for which compensation may be granted.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's atrial fibrillation and cardiomyopathy are not related to service, including in-service exposure to herbicides or Agent Orange. As such, service connection for these conditions is denied.

The Board dismissed the motion for revision based on CUE because it was interpreted as a request for reconsideration of the February 25, 2015 decision.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's uterine prolapse and hysterectomy are not attributable to her military service.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for an addendum opinion regarding his service connection claims.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to an inadequate statement of reasons or bases in the September 2016 decision and because the August 2014 VA examination was not adequate.