Other conditions Board decisions

The Board denied the appellant's claim to establish legal entitlement to VA non-service-connected death pension benefits, finding that new and material evidence had not been received since the March 1996 decision. The service department certified that the appellant's late husband did not have recognized service in the United States Armed Forces in the Far East.

The veteran claims service connection for squamous cell carcinoma of the lung due to asbestos exposure during service. The RO has not reviewed recent private medical evidence and needs to verify inservice occupational exposure to asbestos and provide a VA examination.

The veteran's claim for an increased rating for his service-connected bilateral flat foot disability is being remanded due to the need for additional examinations and development of medical records.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for human immunodeficiency virus/infection, finding no evidence of its onset during military service and no link to such service.

The Board has determined that the veteran's non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was not incurred or aggravated during service and cannot be presumed to have been incurred due to exposure to chemicals in the Gulf War. The claim is denied.

The Board denied an increased rating for the veteran's right knee disability, finding that his condition only warranted a 10 percent evaluation based on slight limitation of motion and arthritis.

The Board found that the July 1997 decision did not contain CUE, and the veteran's claim for service connection for SLE was granted.

The Board has denied the appellant's claim for service connection for the cause of her husband's death due to lack of evidence from the Vet Center regarding his treatment.

The Board has reopened the claim and granted service connection for arthritis, finding that new evidence supports a link between the veteran's current condition and his military service.

The veteran is seeking to establish service connection for a stomach disorder that he believes was caused or aggravated by his service-connected temporomandibular joint injury. The VA needs to provide the veteran with an examination and obtain medical opinions regarding whether his current stomach disorder is related to his service-connected condition.

The Board denied the veteran's claim of reopening his service connection for residuals of a stab wound and GSW to the abdomen, finding that no new and material evidence had been submitted.

The Board has determined that further evidentiary development is necessary in this case and the veteran's claim of service connection for a right foot disorder. The RO should obtain VA medical records from the Alexandria VAMC and New Orleans VAMC, schedule the veteran for a VA examination to assess her current severity of the right foot disorder, and then readjudicate the claim.

The Board has granted a 20 percent rating for the veteran's service-connected post-operative tear of the medial meniscus, left knee, which is more than the current 10 percent rating. The decision also notes that there is no basis to assign a higher rating due to severe impairment.

The Board has granted the veteran's claim for an increased rating of 10 percent for thoracic spine myofascial pain syndrome, effective December 2001.

The Board has granted service connection for chondromalacia patellae of the left and right knees, assigning a 10% disability evaluation effective from January 9, 2002.

The veteran is seeking compensation benefits for obstructive uropathy as secondary to VA treatment, but the claim must be remanded due to inadequate examination and missing records.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased evaluations for duodenal ulcer and tonsillitis, post operative. The evidence did not show that the service-connected conditions were active or manifested by more than mild symptoms.

The Board found that the veteran's service-connected impaired vision of the left eye did not warrant an increased evaluation beyond the current 30 percent rating.

The Board dismissed the veteran's appeal because he failed to specify a specific date for the alleged CUE and did not provide sufficient details or reasons to support his claim of CUE.

The veteran's claim of entitlement to special monthly pension is being remanded for further development, including a VA examination to assess the severity of his osteopenia.