Other conditions Board decisions

The Board found that the veteran's right radial nerve injury did not meet or approximate criteria for a higher evaluation, and thus denied his claim for an increased rating.

The Board denied compensation benefits for right eye blindness due to VA medical treatment in May 1994, but granted compensation benefits for residuals of a right thalamic lacunar infarct. The decision is based on the fact that the stroke was not caused by or coincidental with the treatment.

The veteran's waiver request for the overpayment of Department of Veterans Affairs non-service-connected pension benefits was granted. The issue of whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim for service connection for cardiovascular disease, to include hypertension, is the subject of a separate appellate decision.

The veteran withdrew his appeal for service connection for reduced visual acuity before the Board could make a decision.

The veteran's appeal for an increased evaluation for postvoiding leakage of urine secondary to penile anesthesia was dismissed due to his request for withdrawal.

The Board denied the appellant's claims for service connection for colitis as secondary to PTSD and for restoration of a 50 percent rating for PTSD, finding that there was no direct relationship between his PTSD and colitis. The reduction in rating from 50% to 30% for PTSD was found to be proper.

The Board has denied the veteran's claim for service connection for a skin disorder, to include as a result of exposure to Agent Orange. The appeal is based on presumptive service connection under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1116 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.307.

The Board has determined that the veteran's left foot injury and neck injury are related to his active service, granting service connection for both conditions.

The Board has determined that the proper delimiting date for the appellant's Chapter 35 educational assistance benefits is April 3, 2001. The appeal was granted as this date falls within the applicable period of eligibility.

The Board denied the appellant's request to reopen her claim for service connection for the cause of the veteran's death, finding that new and material evidence had not been received.

The Board denied the claim that the veteran's death was caused by Agent Orange exposure and also denied service connection for a malignant brain tumor as a result of exposure to herbicides.

The Board denied an increased rating for the veteran's left elbow fracture, finding that the evidence did not show ankylosis or limitation of motion to a degree warranting a higher rating.

The Board denied service connection for the claimed nose fracture and head injury residuals due to a lack of credible evidence showing the injuries occurred during active duty.

The Board has ordered further development due to the need for additional evidence and clarification. The case is now remanded to the RO for specific actions, including obtaining a respiratory examination.

The Board has granted a higher evaluation for the veteran's service-connected residuals of a gunshot wound to the left heel, currently rated at 10 percent. The veteran's PTSD remains at 30 percent.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been received to reopen the veteran's claim of service connection for arthritis of the left hip.

The July 1980 and April 1981 RO rating decisions assigning zero percent evaluations for residuals of fractures of the right fibula, tibia, and femur are not found to contain CUE. The veteran's claims for increased evaluations for residuals of fractures of the right leg and fracture of the right femur with instability of the right knee were denied.

The Board denied the appellant's requests to reopen her claims for DIC and death pension benefits, finding that no new and material evidence had been presented.

The Board found no evidence of a current gastrointestinal disorder or diverticulitis related to service, and denied the veteran's claim.

The Board found that the veteran's actions contributed to the creation of the loan guaranty indebtedness and did not constitute fraud, misrepresentation or bad faith. The Board determined that recovery of the debt would not violate principles of equity and good conscience as it would not result in undue hardship for the veteran.