Other conditions Board decisions

The Board dismissed the veteran's appeal of his VA indebtedness claim because he did not file a timely substantive appeal.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development to determine if the veteran's fatigue and sleep loss are service-connected.

The Board has remanded the case due to a recent court decision, and the RO must consider additional evidence developed by the Board and readjudicate the claim on appeal.

The Board has determined that the veteran's osteomyelitis of the right leg had its onset during service, and therefore grants service connection for this condition.

The Board found that the initial evaluations assigned for service-connected left hip and maxillary fracture disabilities were proper, with no evidence of more severe disability warranting higher ratings.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for a nervous condition, finding that the original claim was filed outside the one-year time frame from separation from active service.

The veteran's claim for special monthly compensation based on the need for aid and attendance of another person is being remanded to obtain additional medical records and a determination of his housebound status or permanent need for assistance.

The Board has granted service connection for the veteran's fungus of the left foot and toes, finding that it is at least as likely as not related to his active service.

The veteran's service-connected residuals of a lower back injury are productive of a disability picture that more nearly approximates pronounced intervertebral disc syndrome with incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least six weeks during the past 12 months, warranting a 60 percent rating.

The Board denied the appellant's application to reopen his claim for revocation of forfeiture of VA benefits due to lack of new and material evidence.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for an earlier effective date for DIC benefits, finding that no basis existed under the law to assign such a date prior to June 18, 1998.

The VA determined that the veteran does not currently have Dilantin hyperplasia and overgrowth of gum tissue typical of Dilantin hyperplasia, but rather has chronic generalized moderate to severe periodontitis. As a result, they denied a compensable rating for service-connected Dilantin hyperplasia.

The Board found that the cause of death was metastatic colon cancer, which is not service-connected. The veteran's service records did not show any evidence of colon cancer during or immediately after his military service. Therefore, the claim for service connection for the cause of death was denied.

The veteran's claim for an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for hydradenitis suppurativa was granted, with a rating assigned at 70 percent.

The Board denied service connection for breast cancer, finding no evidence of a causal link to Agent Orange exposure.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an increased rating for his service-connected nasal fracture, finding that the symptoms were commensurate with the current 10 percent rating assigned under Diagnostic Code 6502.

The Board found that the veteran's conditions were not caused by VA medical care, but did find a right groin postoperative scar as a residual of repair of a pseudoaneurysm. The decision is mixed on whether benefits are warranted for the impotence and other symptoms or just the postoperative scar.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) has remanded the case to the originating agency for additional evidentiary development, including obtaining private clinical records from Cape Coral Hospital and medical opinions regarding whether appellant's condition was 'emergent.' The appeal is currently in a pending state.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have a genitourinary disorder that was incurred in or aggravated by his military service.

The Board found that the overpayment of $944 was properly created due to the appellant's failure to notify VA promptly of her divorce, and that the overpayment of $2166 was also properly created. However, it denied waiver of recovery of the overpayment as collection would not be against equity and good conscience.