Other conditions decisions — 2018

The Board denied an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for the Veteran's post-operative epididymectomy, left, with chronic epididymitis, status post left orchiectomy. The evidence showed that both testes were functioning.

The appellant is not eligible for accrued benefits in excess of $3,334.40 as he does not meet the definition of a 'child' and thus cannot receive such benefits on his mother's behalf.

The appeal is remanded due to the failure to comply with special procedural regulations for a simultaneously contested claim.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection as there is no evidence of a current disability related to his claimed left hand index finger injury or burn injury, 80 percent, body scars.

The Board has determined that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of a chronic pelvic disorder or an acquired psychiatric disability, and therefore service connection is denied. The case is being remanded for further examination to assess the severity of her urinary tract infection with bladder incontinence.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's right hemispheric subdural hematoma with right parietal infarct developed secondary to his service-connected type II diabetes mellitus, and thus granted service connection for this condition.

The Board has determined that a remand is necessary to obtain an informed consent form and to provide the Veteran with a medical opinion regarding whether VA's carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, or error in judgment resulted in his left lower extremity neurological disability.

The Board has remanded the claims for service connection for hip disorders as secondary to service-connected pes planus and knee disabilities due to insufficient evidence of current hip disorders. The Veteran is required to undergo a VA examination to determine if he has any hip disorder or chronic disorder manifested by hip pain and instability related to active service.

The Board has remanded the cases of service connection for a skin disorder, liver disorder, and prostate disorder due to exposure claims. A VA examination is required to address these issues.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient medical opinion regarding whether the Veteran's hypertensive cardiovascular disease is related to his exposure to toxic herbicides during service.

The Veteran's claim for an initial rating in excess of 40 percent for prostatitis is being remanded due to the addition of new evidence.

The Veteran's right pterygium does not cause any visual impairment or incapacitating episodes, and therefore a compensable rating is denied.

The Board is remanding the case to determine if the overpayment of VA additional compensation benefits in the amount of $11,789.09 was properly created and whether the Veteran should be granted a waiver for this overpayment.

The Board has restored the Veteran's ratings for varicose veins of both lower extremities from 10% to 40%. The evidence did not show improvement in the condition, and thus restoration was granted.

The Board has remanded the case due to a disagreement with the VA medical opinion regarding whether reactive arthritis is related to service. The Veteran's claim will be reviewed again by a new examiner who must use the 'clear and unmistakable evidence' standard.

The Veteran's claim to reopen the skin condition service connection is granted. The case is remanded for a supplemental opinion on the etiology of the skin condition and whether it is secondary to PTSD.

The Board dismissed the Veteran's appeal for service connection for psychosis for the purpose of establishing eligibility for VA treatment, finding that the Veteran had withdrawn his appeal through his representative during a hearing.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for nonservice-connected death pension benefits after October 1, 2009 due to her excessive net worth and income exceeding the maximum annual pension rate.

The Board denied the claim for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) under 38 U.S.C. § 1151, finding that the Veteran's death was not due to VA treatment.

The Veteran's death was not service connected, and the appellant did not provide evidence of an original or reopened claim for VA compensation or pension benefits at the time of his death. The Veteran died at a private medical facility and had no pending claims for burial benefits. Therefore, the claim for nonservice-connected burial benefits is denied.