Other conditions decisions — 2018

The Veteran's vision loss is not severe enough to qualify for special monthly compensation due to the surgeries he underwent, which have improved his visual acuity.

The appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's death.

The Board found that the Veteran's current right eye ptosis is related to his in-service injury, and granted service connection for this condition.

The Board is remanding the case to verify if a March 2015 DIC payment was sent to the appellant and provide a Supplemental Statement of the Case if necessary.

The Veteran's claim for a higher rating for spinal stenosis of the lumbar spine is denied as his disability does not meet or approximate the criteria for a rating in excess of 20 percent.

The Board has remanded the claims for service connection for skin rash, delayed wound healing, weight loss disability, alopecia universalis, and tachycardia (claimed as a heart disability).,No specific rating or effective date was assigned in this decision.

The Board has remanded the case due to a lack of information on occupational radiation exposure records, and further consideration is needed by VA Under Secretary for Benefits.

The Veteran's mandible fracture resulted in limited motion of the temporomandibular joint, with an inter-incisal range between 50 millimeters and 22 millimeters. The Board granted a 20 percent rating for this condition effective February 27, 2003.

The Board denied service connection for stomach cancer, finding that the condition was not incurred during service or due to herbicide agent exposure. The Board also found that it was not caused by or aggravated by the Veteran's service-connected diabetes mellitus type II.

The Veteran's right and left hallux valgus, status post bunionectomy with arthritis of the great toe, have been rated at 10 percent for each extremity throughout the appeal period. The Board found that these ratings are appropriate based on the schedular criteria.

The Veteran's hematuria is currently rated as noncompensable under the VA rating criteria. The Veteran contends that his service-connected condition has worsened, but the October 2015 VA examination did not address any voiding dysfunction or urinary tract infection symptoms. Therefore, a remand for a supplemental VA examination and opinion is required.

The Veteran's service-connected left elbow injury residuals with traumatic arthritis is currently rated at 10 percent, but the Board finds that it does not warrant a higher rating due to limited motion and pain.

The appeal has been dismissed due to the death of the appellant.

The Board denied service connection for pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) and hysterectomy, as the Veteran did not have objective indications of a qualifying chronic disability associated with Persian Gulf War service. The Board also found that PID was not caused by or aggravated by service.

The Veteran withdrew her appeal for service connection for narcolepsy, and the Board has dismissed the case as a result.

The Board denied the Appellant's claim for accrued benefits because her claims were not filed within one year of the Veteran's death, and she did not provide evidence that VA provided her with forms to file for accrued benefits.

The Veteran's current B-Cell lymphoma, claimed as Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is found to be caused by her exposure to toxins emitted by burn pits during her service in Iraq and Kuwait. The Board finds the evidence in equipoise, granting service connection for this condition.

The Board notes that the Veteran's service from August 30, 2010 to November 20, 2012 is not considered honorable for VA compensation purposes. The case is remanded due to an incomplete record regarding a possible upgrade of his discharge character.

The Board has determined that the Veteran does not have a current bilateral eye disability related to his service, and therefore denied his claim for service connection.

The Board has remanded the claims for nonservice-connected pension and burial benefits due to procedural issues, including determining whether the appellant is a proper substitute claimant. The claims are being considered together as they could impact each other's disposition.