Other conditions Board decisions

The Board found that the injuries sustained in an accident on October 21, 1994 were the result of the veteran's willful misconduct and thus denied his claim for pension.

The veteran's appeal for more than two months of educational assistance benefits was denied as she did not meet the statutory eligibility criteria established by Congress.

The Board denied a request for an earlier effective date of April 12, 1993 for a 10% evaluation for service-connected trichiasis of the left eye. The claim was initially denied in July 1978 and reopened in April 1993.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the veteran's claim for service connection for a nervous condition. The case is now remanded for further action.

The Board is considering whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the veteran's claim for service connection for arthritis. If so, they will determine if the arthritis was incurred in service or within one year of discharge.

The veteran's overpayment of improved disability pension benefits is waived due to the severity of his financial hardship and the minimal fault on his part.

The Board has determined that the veteran's service connection claim for PTSD is granted based on new and material evidence.

The veteran was individually unemployable due to service-connected disabilities from June 1989, and the effective date for TDIU is granted in June 1989.

The Board has remanded the case due to missing medical records and conflicting responses regarding a hearing. The veteran's claim for reimbursement or payment of private medical care will be reconsidered with the additional information provided.

The VA denied an increased rating for sacroiliac weakness, finding that the disability is manifested by painful motion without muscle spasm or loss of lateral spine motion.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for further medical evaluation and opinion regarding the etiology of the veteran's current obstructive pulmonary disease, including whether it is related to his military service. The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) also requires additional action.

The veteran's deafness is not the result of VA treatment, and therefore, he is denied compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151.

The Board has denied service connection for a left inguinal hernia and gout, as the evidence does not support that these conditions began during or were aggravated by military service. The claim for an increased evaluation for cervical spine disability is also denied due to the veteran's failure to report for VA examinations.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for a chronic respiratory disorder, a rating in excess of 20 percent for arthritis of multiple joints, and a TDIU. The decision is considered final.

The Board found that the submitted evidence did not establish a current sinus condition or gallbladder condition, and thus denied reopening of the claims for service connection.

The Board found that the veteran's right ankle disability did not improve enough to warrant a reduction from 20% to 10%, and granted restoration of his 20% rating. The dental issues were not addressed as they are considered 'unknown' due to insufficient evidence.

The Board has found the appellant's claim well grounded and requires further development to determine if his left eye problems are related to service, including exposure to toxic gases.

The Board has determined that the veteran's service-connected bursitis of the left hip does not warrant a rating greater than 10 percent.

The veteran's cognitive disorder and mood disorder are rated at 50 percent, while the thoracic strain with degenerative changes remains at 10 percent. The issues regarding service connection for head trauma residuals and increased rating for dysthymic disorder have been resolved.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an effective date prior to February 27, 1990 for a permanent and total disability rating for pension purposes. The decision stated that the requirements for retroactive pension benefits under 38 C.F.R. § 3.151 and 3.400(b)(1)(ii)(B) were not met.