Other conditions Board decisions

The Board found that the veteran's net worth exceeded the limit for non-service-connected disability pension benefits, as his expenses exceed his income and he has a significant amount of assets. As such, payment of Improved Disability Pension benefits is precluded.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient information regarding the appellant's medical expenses and income, particularly in relation to her eligibility for VA death pension benefits. The RO is instructed to review the claims file, obtain all relevant medical expense details from the appellant, and then readjudicate the issue.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete service personnel records and a need for further medical examination. The appellant's claim for service connection for cold injury to his hands and feet, bilateral is pending.

The Board has remanded the case due to scheduling issues, and will handle it further.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded to the RO for compliance with the provisions of the February 1997 remand, including providing adequate reasons and bases for the decision, ensuring full compliance with the VCAA, and scheduling a VA vascular examination.

The veteran's residuals of a gunshot wound to the right hand are currently rated at 10 percent, which is the maximum rating available for this condition.

The Board has determined that the veteran's systemic arthritis does not warrant a compensable rating, and his peptic ulcer disease with gastritis and residuals of hiatal hernia repair is rated at 10 percent. The preponderance of evidence is against granting higher ratings for either condition.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of a neck injury, concluding that there was no evidence linking his current condition to his military service.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the claim of service connection for residuals of a head injury.

The Board has determined that the veteran's death was caused by his service-connected cancer, and thus grants all three issues.

The Board has remanded the case due to a need for additional medical examination and records, as well as notification of the veteran regarding the VCAA.

The Board denied increased evaluations for the veteran's varicose veins of both legs, finding that the current symptoms did not meet the criteria for a higher rating.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for subarachnoid cyst, finding no current disability and noting that there is no evidence of a subarachnoid cyst in service records. The decision also noted that the veteran was advised that to establish service connection, he must show a current disability related to disease or injury in service.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an extension of his delimiting date for Chapter 30 educational assistance benefits due to a lack of clear evidence that his learning disability prevented him from initiating or completing his chosen program of education.

The veteran's appeal is remanded due to the need for additional notification and development under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA). The case will be returned to the Board if necessary.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for a skin disorder, finding no evidence linking his condition to his military service or exposure to herbicides.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for a left eye disorder and poor visual acuity, finding that his preexisting condition did not worsen during active military service.

The veteran's appeal is remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining VA treatment records and scheduling a VA joints examination.

The Board has determined that the veteran's urinary incontinence was caused by VA medical treatment in September 2000, and thus meets the criteria for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151.

The Board denied service connection for a back disorder in March 1977 and again in February 1985, finding that the evidence did not establish new facts supporting the claim. The veteran's appeal to reopen his claim was also denied.