Other conditions decisions — 2021

The Board denied service connection for a scratched cornea of the right eye, finding that there is no evidence of any current disability related to the in-service injury and no causal relationship between the past injury and the Veteran's current condition.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient clarification of the Veteran's service points, particularly for periods of active duty and inactive duty training. The Veteran is seeking pension benefits based on his military service.

The Board denied service connection for a bilateral eye disability and a urinary disorder, finding that the evidence did not support a link between these conditions and service.

The Veteran's primary sclerosing cholangitis and ulcerative colitis are granted as due to exposure to herbicide agents.,Service connection for the liver transplant, chronic immunosuppression, chronic renal disease, and colectomy is also granted.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for recognition as the Veteran's surviving spouse due to her divorce from the Veteran prior to his death, and because she did not meet the criteria of being married to the Veteran at the time of his death.

The Board has remanded the case due to a duty-to-assist issue and an inadequacy in addressing the probative value of certain documents.

The Veteran's left elbow disability has not been properly evaluated due to the lack of a recent VA examination, and his claim is being remanded for such an evaluation.

A rating of 30 percent for hidradenitis suppurativa, a skin disorder, is granted from May 24, 2010.

The Veteran's appeal has been dismissed due to his death. The Board does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this case.

The Board denied service connection for residuals of left elbow and left leg fractures, finding that the evidence does not support a causal relationship between these disabilities and the Veteran's service-connected heart disability.

The Board has remanded the TDIU claim due to unclear income information and incomplete employment history. The Veteran needs to provide his own income statements from his employers, as well as annual SSA earnings reports.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for additional development, including obtaining SSA records and a medical opinion regarding whether the Veteran's chronic pain is caused by VA treatment.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for chronic tremors, finding that there was no evidence of a nexus between his current condition and active duty service or any service-connected disability.

The Board has remanded the case due to issues related to an apportionment in excess of $150 per month for the appellant on behalf of D.T., the Veteran's child. The remand includes ensuring full compliance with contested claims procedures, notifying the appellant about requirements for a minor child to continue receiving an apportionment after turning 18 years old, and obtaining necessary documentation regarding D.T.'s educational pursuits and receipt of DEA Chapter 35 benefits.

The Veteran's claim for a higher rating for his left Achilles' tendon disability was denied as the evidence did not show ankylosis, which is required for a higher rating.,The Veteran's claim for a compensable rating for his left Achilles' tendon scar was also denied because the scars did not meet the criteria for a compensable rating under any applicable diagnostic codes.

The Veteran withdrew her appeal for medical reimbursement for an emergency room visit on July 11, 2016 at Gundersen Lutheran Medical Center.

The Veteran's appeal for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) has been withdrawn by the appellant, resulting in the dismissal of his appeal.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient medical opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran's left foot disorder, specifically lost mobility of his left great toe.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient medical opinions regarding whether the Veteran's bladder impairment is related to his service-connected conditions or if it was aggravated by them. The VA needs to obtain additional treatment records and provide addendum opinions on these issues.

The Board has determined that a medical opinion from an appropriate urologist is needed to address whether the Veteran's chronic pelvic pain/bladder pain/prostate pain syndrome is caused or aggravated by his service-connected bilateral lower extremity disabilities. The case is being remanded for this purpose.