Other conditions decisions — 2019

The Board has ordered a remand to obtain an adequate medical opinion regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran's prostatic hypertrophy, including whether it is related to his service-connected disabilities or due to exposure to herbicides.

The Board has decided to remand the case for an addendum medical opinion regarding whether the Veteran's periodontal disease is having a direct and material detrimental effect on his service-connected Sjogren’s syndrome.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for adhesions on her ovary and fallopian tube, which led to partial removal of small bowels. The evidence did not establish a nexus between these conditions and her in-service C-sections.

The Veteran's nasopharyngeal carcinoma is being remanded for additional development as the claim involves presumed exposure to herbicides, specifically Agent Orange. The Board finds that a VA examination is needed to determine if there is a connection between the Veteran's service and his condition.

The Veteran's broken teeth disability is not rated as compensable, as the loss of masticatory surface can be restored by suitable prosthesis.

The Veteran's hypertensive vascular disease has been rated at 10 percent since June 2017, and the Board finds that a higher rating is not warranted as his condition does not meet or approximate the criteria for a disability rating in excess of 10 percent.

The Board has remanded the case due to an inadequate VA examination, and a new one needs to be conducted.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient information and conflicting in-service reports, requiring a new VA examination.

The Veteran's increased rating claim for her hysterectomy is granted, with a maximum disability rating of 50 percent.

The Veteran's nephritis syndrome is not caused by contaminated Metformin prescribed by VA, and the Board finds that it was not proximately caused by VA care. Therefore, compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for nephritis syndrome is denied.

The Veteran's bilateral heel strain began in service and has continued to the present, meeting the criteria for service connection.

The Board denied service connection for a chronic disability of the central nervous system, finding that there is no current evidence of such a condition and concluding that the Veteran does not have a current chronic disability of the central nervous system.

The Veteran's service in Vietnam is confirmed, and his exposure to Agent Orange is conceded. The Board finds that the oropharynx cancer may be presumed due to herbicide exposure as a respiratory cancer (lung, bronchus, larynx, or trachea). However, further medical examination is needed to determine if the cancer qualifies for presumptive service connection.

The Veteran's rating for non-small cell carcinoma of the lung, status post lobectomy was reduced from 10 percent to zero percent. The Board has determined that this reduction was improper and has ordered a remand to address the current severity and manifestations of his service-connected condition.

The Veteran's request to transfer more than one day of Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to his daughter was denied because the Veteran had not exhausted all remaining entitlement to Chapter 30 benefits prior to electing to transfer entitlement of Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to his daughter.

The Veteran's service connection claims for BPH and squamous cell carcinoma of the left forearm were denied as there was no evidence linking these conditions to his military service, including exposure to herbicide agents. The Board found that additional development is needed due to the Veteran's hearing loss and lumbar spine disability.

The Board has remanded the case due to unclear evidence regarding expenses related to the Veteran's final illness. The Appellant must provide documentation of her mother's last sickness and specific expenses incurred.

The appellant is not entitled to payment of accrued benefits in excess of $10,073.97 as he does not meet the legal requirements for such benefits.

The Veteran's child, J.F., receives additional disability compensation. The appellant is granted an apportionment of the Veteran’s VA benefits in the amount of this additional compensation for J.F.

The Veteran's service did not fall within a period of war, so he does not meet the basic eligibility requirements for nonservice-connected pension benefits.