Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has granted a 60 percent evaluation for varicose veins of the left lower extremity, resolving all doubt in favor of the veteran. The issue of entitlement to an increased rating for varicose veins of the right leg is referred back to the RO for further development and adjudication.

The VA determined that the veteran's service-connected right knee disability, specifically his post-reconstruction ACL reconstruction, does not warrant an evaluation in excess of the initial 10 percent assigned.

The veteran's teeth were pulled during service, but the VA Medical Center determined that he did not meet eligibility criteria for outpatient dental treatment due to his failure to apply within one year of leaving service and because his condition was not deemed a compensable disability.

The Board denied service connection for allergies and lung problems, finding that the veteran's current conditions did not begin during or as a result of his military service.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for pyelonephritis and urinary tract infection, finding that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen these claims.

The veteran's appeal has been dismissed due to his death. The claim was for service connection for a right eye condition, which is secondary to service-connected dermatitis of the feet.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for an earlier effective date for DIC benefits, finding that September 28, 1997 was the correct effective date based on the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 1318.

The Board has determined that the veteran's service-connected posterior left diaphragmatic hernia warrants a 40 percent rating, but no higher.

The Board has determined that the veteran's death was not caused by his service-connected conditions, and thus denied the claim for service connection for the cause of death.

The Board found that the veteran's claims for increased ratings for otitis externa and dermatophytosis of the legs and feet were not supported by evidence showing marked interference with employment or frequent periods of hospitalization, and thus denied both claims.

The Board denied reimbursement of unauthorized private medical expenses because the treatment was not rendered in a medical emergency and VA facilities were feasibly available.

The Board denied the veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for residuals of an injury to the middle and ring fingers of the left hand due to a lack of verified in-service injury.

The Board found no evidence linking the veteran's current H-pyloric ulcer disease to her service, and denied her claim for service connection.

The Board found that the veteran's porphyria cutanea tarda (PCT) was not related to his military service, including exposure to Agent Orange. The evidence did not support a finding of service connection for PCT.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for a right hip injury and left hip disorder, as well as his claim for an increased rating for bilateral hearing loss. The evidence submitted did not provide new or material information to reopen any of these claims.

The Board found that the veteran's blindness in his left eye was not caused by VA treatment, and thus denied compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for evaluations in excess of 10 percent for patellofemoral pain syndrome of both his right and left knees, finding that the evidence did not support a higher evaluation.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for arthritis of multiple joints and an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for degenerative joint disease of the left elbow. The decision found that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the claim for arthritis, and that there was no X-ray evidence of arthritis involving the right elbow, hands, or wrists.

The VA has determined that the veteran's current rating for otitis externa of the right ear is at its maximum allowable level (10%) and does not meet the criteria for a higher rating due to lack of interference with employment or frequent hospitalization.

The Board found that the evidence did not show that the appellant's son was permanently incapable of self-support prior to reaching the age of 18, and therefore denied the claim.