Other conditions decisions — 2020

The Board has remanded the claims for an ear disability and a right knee disability due to incomplete development, including obtaining additional medical opinions.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim to assign an earlier effective date for additional dependency compensation based on his marriage to E.C., as there was no written claim received within a year of their marriage in February 2015.

The Board has reopened the claim of service connection for residuals of head trauma and remanded it. The Veteran's claim for a higher rating for myositis of the right paravertebral trapezius, and rhomboid muscles is also remanded.

The Board denied service connection for ulcerative colitis and remanded the issue of an increased rating for bilateral hearing loss.

The Board granted the Veteran's claim for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) effective September 30, 2011. The issue of reasonableness of attorney fees is remanded.

The Veteran's appeal for service connection for toe and nail fungus, including jungle rot, has been dismissed due to the death of the appellant.

The Board has remanded the case due to new evidence submitted by the Veteran, and they need to obtain updated clinical records for a medical opinion regarding whether the Veteran's use of Brasso in boot camp is related to his CLL.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for right hand arthritis, left hand arthritis, and left hand trigger finger as there is no evidence to support a nexus between these conditions and his military service.

The Veteran's service-connected duodenal ulcer disease did not cause or contribute to his death from multiple myeloma and myocardial infarction due to severe anemia.

The Veteran's left foot disability, which includes multiple metatarsal head resections, is rated at a 30 percent rating since July 21, 2004. The condition more closely approximates severe impairment of the left foot under Diagnostic Code 5284.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for side cramps with weakness, finding no current disability related to this condition and noting that the evidence did not show a functional impairment.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection of his abdominal aortic aneurysm as secondary to his service-connected coronary artery disease, finding that there was no evidence supporting this claim.

The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date of service connection for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is dismissed because the appeal resulted from the impermissible adjudication of a freestanding earlier effective date claim.

The Veteran's peripheral vascular disease of the right lower extremity is being remanded for additional development, including obtaining records from his 1998 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and any VA treatment records since February 2019.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the cause of the hernia and whether it was a foreseeable outcome of the surgery. The Veteran is seeking service connection for a hernia allegedly caused by Agent Orange exposure, and compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for a hernia resulting from a December 2016 orchiectomy.

The Board has granted service connection for a skin disorder, including skin rashes and herpes simplex type II, finding that the Veteran's statements and hearing testimony supported his claims of recurrent skin rash since service.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to unclear income and medical expenses calculations, which need further investigation and audit.

The Board has determined that the appellant is in need of regular aid and attendance due to her physical and mental incapacity, which requires care or assistance on a regular basis to protect her from daily environmental hazards.

The Board dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's withdrawal before a decision was made.

The Board has determined that further development is necessary before the claim can be adjudicated due to an inadequate VA examination. The case is remanded for a new medical opinion regarding whether any incident of VA care caused the Veteran's hemorrhagic cerebral infarction and if so, whether VA demonstrated negligence in treating hypertension.