Other conditions Board decisions

The Board found that the veteran does not have dementia and denied his claim for service connection.

The Board found no competent evidence linking current arthritis to service or any other condition, and denied the veteran's claims for service connection. The claim for an increased rating for malaria was also denied as there is no evidence of active malaria in recent decades.

The Board found that VA did not authorize the veteran's air transport to and treatment at St. John's Hospital, and thus denied his claim for payment or reimbursement of medical expenses.

The Board found that the appellant's leukemia was not incurred or aggravated by service, including as a result of exposure to ionizing radiation during active duty for training. The claim is denied.

The Board has determined that the veteran's service-connected shell fragment wound to the right hip, with degenerative joint disease as a residual, warrants an initial disability rating of 10 percent.

The veteran's genitourinary disorder, characterized by recurrent dysuria and urethral discharge, has not met the criteria for an evaluation in excess of 10 percent under the applicable rating criteria.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for a new videoconference hearing before a Veterans Law Judge at the Des Moines, Iowa, RO.

The appeal is dismissed due to the death of the appellant.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has not been submitted to reopen the appellant's claim for recognition as the veteran's surviving spouse for VA purposes.

The Board has determined that the April 1998 rating decision denying service connection for spinal arthritis is final. The appellant did not appeal this decision within one year of receiving notice, and thus it remains final.

The Board found that the veteran's right forearm disability did not warrant a rating higher than 20 percent, and denied his request for an earlier effective date for the PTSD rating.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for gouty arthritis, finding no evidence of the condition during or within one year after service and rejecting the veteran's assertion that cold exposure caused his current condition.

The veteran is seeking compensation under the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for additional disabilities as a result of medical treatment by the Department of Veterans Affairs in April-May 2000, to include residuals of a staphylococcus infection. The case has been remanded to determine if VA nurses in the VAMC Charleston ICU communicated staphylococcus aureus to patients at approximately the period of time in which the veteran developed such an infection.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for alopecia areata, finding no evidence of a nexus to service or undiagnosed illness.

The Board has reopened the appellant's claim of service connection for tibia and fibula impairment to include paralysis of the left leg due to new evidence submitted. However, further development is needed regarding duty status on July 30, 1975 and August 28, 1975.

The Board has determined that additional development is necessary before a final decision can be made on the veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of left eye surgical repair.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for hypercholesterolemia and hyperlipidemia, finding that there was no competent medical evidence showing a current disability manifested by or attributable to these conditions. The RO granted entitlement to service connection for lumbosacral strain with a 10% evaluation effective from October 2001.

The Board found that the residuals of a shell fragment wound of the right thigh, which consist primarily of complaints of cramping and some weakness on squatting, are productive of no more than moderate impairment. The veteran's claim for an increased rating was denied.

The appellant's claim for nonservice-connected pension benefits was denied as he did not have qualifying wartime service.

The Board found that recovery of the overpayment would be against equity and good conscience due to the veteran's financial hardship caused by his incarceration, resulting in a waiver being granted.