Other conditions Board decisions

The Board of Veterans' Appeals has determined that J.M.F. is the last-named beneficiary of the veteran's NSLI policy and is entitled to all proceeds.

The Board granted a higher initial rating of 60 percent for residuals of myocardial infarction, effective June 9, 1993. The veteran's claim for TDIU prior to July 22, 1996 was also granted.

The Board denied service connection for Buerger's disease, finding that it was not incurred in or aggravated by service and is not related to Agent Orange exposure.

The VA did not find any additional disability of the back or neurological impairment of the lower extremities as a result of the surgical treatment in June 1983 and February 1984.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the veteran's skin disorder, including itching. Additional development is needed to determine if the symptoms are related to an undiagnosed illness or a chronic disability.

The Board denied the veteran's claim of service connection for a bilateral eye disorder, including cataracts and macular changes. The VA examiner found no causal relationship between these conditions and the veteran's period of active duty.

The Board has granted an initial evaluation of 30 percent for dysthymic disorder, effective from October 16, 2000.

The Board found that the veteran did not sustain a fracture of the skull in service and denied his claim for residuals of a fractured skull with plate in head.

The Board finds that the veteran does not have a current continuing gynecological disability and her claim for service connection is denied. The evaluation of tachycardia, status post radio frequency ablation remains pending as further development is needed to determine if an increased rating is warranted.

The Board found that the veteran's right eye blindness was not caused by VA fault or an unforeseeable event, and thus denied his claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining VA clinical records and arranging for a VA orthopedic examination of the veteran's right elbow. The RO/AMC will then re-adjudicate the claim.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for right and left hip disorders, finding that new evidence did not meet the criteria to reopen his claim for a right hip disorder. The left hip disorder was also found not incurred in or aggravated by active duty.

The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate notification and assistance provided by VA. The claim will be reconsidered after proper notice is given.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of a shrapnel wound to the mouth, finding that there was no credible evidence of an in-service injury and that his current condition is not related to service.

The Board denied service connection for micturition syncope and the initial disability rating for metatarsalgia of the left foot. The veteran's claim for micturition syncope was reopened based on new evidence, but the RO found that this evidence did not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim.

The Board denied the veteran's appeal regarding his delimiting date for educational assistance benefits, holding that the assigned date of December 5, 2001, was correct.

The Board has ordered additional development due to missing service medical records and the need for a VA examination. The case will be returned to the Board after further review.

The Board has determined that the appellant is entitled to reimbursement for burial expenses paid on behalf of her mother, but requires additional information regarding income and medical expenses from both T. M. and E. A.

The Board denied service connection for nerve damage of the left foot and leg, claimed as a residual of a gunshot wound of the left calf.,The Board also denied service connection for an abscess of the right groin.

The veteran is seeking an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for PTSD. The case has been remanded due to procedural issues and potential VCAA compliance.