Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has determined that the veteran's claim for service connection for pleural effusion, fibrous pleuritis, and pleural plaques is denied due to lack of evidence linking his current condition to in-service asbestos exposure.

The Board found no clear and unmistakable error in the July 1949 rating decision reducing the evaluation for right hand disability from 10 percent to noncompensable.

The Board denied the claim as there was no deemed valid marriage between the veteran and the claimant, despite living together for several years. The appellant knew of a legal impediment to their marriage.

The veteran's son is not eligible for Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits under Chapter 35, Title 38, United States Code because the veteran does not meet any of the eligibility requirements.

The veteran's skin diseases, including cancerous moles, were not incurred or aggravated in service and may not be presumed to have been incurred due to Agent Orange exposure. The claim was denied.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for earlier effective dates for service connection of hammertoes and hallux valgus deformities of both feet, finding that the earliest date of entitlement was June 4, 1997.

The veteran's claim for a rating in excess of 20 percent for osteomyelitis of the left radius was denied from January 1, 1995 to April 27, 1999. From April 28, 1999, her claim for a rating in excess of 10 percent was also denied.

The Board has denied service connection for mouth and tongue cancer due to the absence of a current diagnosis. The remaining claims, including sinus disability, lung disability, arteriosclerotic peripheral vascular disease, and nicotine dependence, are pending as they require further development.

The Board found that the appellant is not a proper claimant for purposes of establishing entitlement to VA death benefits as she was legally married to another individual prior to her marriage to the veteran.

The case is being remanded to the RO for scheduling a Travel Board hearing and further development.

The VA denied the veteran's claim for a higher rating for his reactive airway disease, finding that the most recent pulmonary function test showed FEV-1 of 74 percent predicted, which does not meet the criteria for a higher rating under the applicable disability code.

The Board found that the appellant and veteran were not legally married for a full year prior to the veteran's death, thus failing to meet the eligibility requirements for DIC benefits.

The veteran's claims for increased evaluations and TDIU were denied, while service connection was granted for ischemic heart disease as a residual of beriberi.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for additional accrued death pension benefits, finding that there are no such benefits due and noting that the preponderance of evidence is against the claim.

The veteran's claim for a powered wheelchair was denied because the VA determined that it is not medically necessary for his service-connected disability.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining medical records and arranging for a VA psychiatric examination to determine if the veteran currently meets the criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD.

The VA denied the claim that the veteran's cause of death was related to his military service, including exposure to herbicides. The Board found that hepatocellular carcinoma did not arise from his time in Vietnam and concluded that tinnitus did not hasten his death.

The veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for the grant of a total rating for compensation purposes based on individual unemployability due to service connected disabilities (TDIU) was denied by the RO. The TDIU award had been granted effective January 12, 1998.

The Board has granted effective dates of December 23, 1987 for the grant of a 40 percent evaluation for paralysis of the right lower extremity and special monthly compensation for loss of use of the right foot. The case is remanded to obtain additional medical records and determine if further development or notice action is required.

The veteran's appeal was denied as he is not entitled to additional compensation for his present spouse and their child prior to February 1, 2001.