Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has granted a 30 percent evaluation for the veteran's post-operative residuals of left shoulder surgery with degenerative changes, newly diagnosed as osteochondromatosis of the left glenohumeral joint with grade III-IV degenerative joint disease, effective from February 1, 2001.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for a rectal polyp disorder, finding that there was no current disability and no evidence connecting it to service.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for peripheral retinal degeneration of the left eye, finding that there was no competent medical evidence linking his current condition to service.

The veteran's right ureterolithiasis was rated at 30 percent from April 12, 1995. The appeal is denied as the disability did not warrant a higher rating during the period in question.

The Board granted a 10 percent disability evaluation for the veteran's service-connected residuals of two cesarean sections and laparotomy, effective from August 31, 1992. The issue of special monthly compensation for loss of use of a creative organ is pending.

The Board found that the veteran's motor neuron disease, including ALS and Kugelberg-Welander syndrome, is not service-connected. The appeal for financial assistance in purchasing an automobile and adaptive equipment was also denied.

The Board has referred the case back to the RO due to a cancelled VA examination, and instructed them to conduct a new examination and take any necessary measures under the VCAA.

The Board has granted service connection for nicotine dependence and a respiratory disability, including emphysema and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), both of which are found to be related to the appellant's nicotine dependence that originated in service.

The Board has determined that the veteran's service-connected psychophysiological cardiovascular disorder does not warrant an increased rating, as there is no evidence of psychiatric symptoms or disability on recent VA examinations.

The Board has reopened the claim for service connection for a jaw disability and dental disorder due to in-service radiation therapy. The evidence now shows that chronic dental and jaw disabilities are not of service origin.

The Board has determined that an increase in the apportionment of the veteran's VA disability compensation benefits to the appellant is not warranted due to insufficient evidence showing hardship or undue financial burden on the veteran.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for increased evaluations for her right and left breast cancer, finding that the current ratings are correct based on the evidence of record.

The Board has denied the appeal challenging the propriety of an apportionment of the veteran's VA compensation benefits on behalf of his estranged spouse and their minor children, finding that the $250 apportionment provided to the estranged spouse was proper based on hardship and other factors.

The Board found that the veteran's current back disability is not related to his active service or any injury therein, and thus denied his claim for service connection.

The veteran's claim for service connection for hyperphoria of the right eye and bilateral myopic astigmatism and convergence insufficiency is being remanded to allow for a video conference hearing.

The Board denied a compensable rating for left testicle atrophy, finding that the condition did not meet the criteria for an extraschedular rating and was properly rated noncompensable since its effective date.

The Board denied service connection for the cause of the veteran's death due to lack of evidence linking the lung cancer to his military service, including exposure to asbestos.

The Board found that the veteran's death was not caused by any service-connected disability and denied the claim for service connection for the cause of the veteran's death.

The veteran's claim for a higher initial evaluation of his service-connected herpes simplex of the right thumb is denied as there is no evidence that the condition meets or approximates the criteria for a higher rating under the applicable VA rating criteria.

The appeal has been dismissed as the appellant withdrew their appeal prior to a decision being made.