Other conditions decisions — 2019

The Board denied the Appellant's claim for recognition as the Veteran’s surviving spouse, finding that she did not meet the criteria for eligibility due to her divorce from the Veteran being caused by his misconduct.

The Veteran's neck disorder, claimed as lateral neck pain and stiffness, was not found to be related to his military service. The Board denied the claim for service connection.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal for an initial rating in excess of 70 percent for service-connected mood disorder, NOS.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient medical evidence regarding the etiology of the Veteran's left hip disorder, specifically her in-service injuries and subsequent symptoms.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran's infertility, specifically whether it is related to service or environmental exposures.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for additional dependency benefits based on school attendance for his daughter, D., as she began receiving Chapter 35 DEA benefits effective January 20, 2015. The decision is based on a lack of entitlement under the law due to the prohibition of duplication of benefits between disability compensation and educational assistance.

The Veteran's skin condition, specifically dermatophytosis and onychomycosis of the bilateral feet, is currently rated at 10 percent. The Board found that the current rating does not meet the criteria for a higher rating as the condition has been treated with topical therapy only.

The Board denied a compensable rating for the Veteran's service-connected ventral hernia, finding that there is no evidence of need for support by a belt as required under DC 7339.

The Board denied service connection for a bilateral eye disability, finding that the Veteran's current conditions developed many years after service and are not related to his active duty.

The Veteran's MRSA infection is not considered a qualifying additional disability resulting from VA treatment, and therefore compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for the MRSA infection is denied.

The Veteran's post traumatic arthritis of the right hip has been rated at 10 percent since September 13, 2011. The appeal is denied as his symptoms do not warrant a higher rating.

The Board denied a higher disability rating for the Veteran's left foot amputations of four toes, including the great toe, as the current rating is already at the highest possible under the applicable diagnostic code.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (claimed as elevated IGM, Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia) due to a lack of evidence showing exposure to herbicides or other toxins during service and no established link between the condition and service.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral keratoconus, claimed as loss of vision, has been granted. He is also eligible for special monthly compensation based on his need for aid and attendance or housebound status.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete medical records and a need for a VA opinion regarding the cause of death. The Veteran's cause of death is being reviewed, but service connection cannot be determined as it was not addressed in this decision.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient medical opinions regarding the cause of the Veteran's death and potential service connection for an undiagnosed illness.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete medical records and failure to provide proper notice for a VA examination. The Veteran's abdominal aneurysm needs further evaluation by a clinician.

The Veteran's lower back nerve damage and left leg pain are found to be a result of VA's failure to timely diagnose and treat an epidural abscess caused by a steroid injection, resulting in permanent disability. Compensation is granted under 38 U.S.C. § 1151.

The Veteran's herpes infection is being remanded for a medical opinion to determine if it was caused by contaminated instruments used during her January 2012 surgical procedure at the Houston VAMC.

The Board has decided that the claim for VR&E benefits needs to be reconsidered and a supplemental statement of the case should be issued.