Other conditions decisions — 2020

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

The Veteran's claim for increased rating for left hand scars and initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss was denied. Service connection for left hand arthritis of the long finger and ring and little fingers was granted with a 10% rating effective February 4, 2020.

The Board dismissed the appeal due to the Veteran's withdrawal of the appeal prior to a decision being made.

The Board denied compensation for atrial fibrillation due to blood pressure and/or sedation medications, finding no evidence of additional disability as a result of VA care.

The Board denied service connection for a right leg disorder, finding that the Veteran does not have a right leg disorder that was incurred in or caused by service.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for hyperlipidemia, variously claimed as high cholesterol, is denied because the condition is not a disease or injury for which VA compensation benefits are payable.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a gynecological disorder, including endometriosis, finding that her pre-existing condition did not worsen during service and thus was not aggravated by military service.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for right and left elbow bursitis and bilateral elbow tendinitis/epicondylitis has been reopened, and the Board has granted both claims based on evidence showing a current disability and a link to active service.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for service connection due to insufficient evidence and need for further examination. The issues include jungle rot of the bilateral feet, shrapnel wound residuals, PTSD, and a left knee condition.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for scoliosis, finding that it is a congenital defect and not aggravated by service. The preponderance of evidence did not support a finding of service connection.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection of a lung condition, finding that there is no competent evidence to establish that his current lung condition either began in service or is related to service.

The Board denied the Veteran's requests for earlier effective dates for adding his spouse, children K. and Na., as dependents to his VA disability compensation awards.

The Veteran's appeal seeking a higher rating for his scar condition has been dismissed due to the death of the Veteran.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for increased ratings for his service-connected residual left hand pain and metacarpal fracture due to inadequate examination in a prior decision.

The VA has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the Veteran's respiratory disability, specifically a lack of pulmonary function tests (PFTs). The case is now pending for further evaluation.

The Board has granted the claim for service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death, finding that his death was due to coronary artery disease (CAD), which is presumed to be related to herbicide agent exposure during service in Vietnam. The appeal was reopened based on new evidence received since the previous denial.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete development and a need for an appropriate test (such as a RT-PCR or NS1) to determine current Dengue virus infection.

The Board denied service connection for left knee disability, including chondromalacia patella, finding that the evidence did not support a link between the condition and service.

The Board has granted service connection for schizoaffective disorder, finding that the Veteran's condition likely began during his military service and continues to this day. The decision is based on new medical opinions linking the current condition to service.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding whether the Veteran's left eye cataract is related to his service-connected left eye retinal tear and lattice retinal degeneration, or if it was caused by such condition. The examiner must provide a rationale for their opinion on these issues.