Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has determined that the veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for right arm tendon transplant residuals is well-grounded and grants the claim.

The Board denied an earlier effective date for service connection of schizoaffective disorder, finding that the claim was not filed until August 11, 1992.

The veteran's claim for service connection for squamous cell carcinoma of the right tonsil as a result of exposure to herbicides is denied because there is no evidence that he was exposed to herbicides during his active service, and there is no competent medical evidence linking his current condition to his military service or any presumed conditions.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for meningioma, finding that there was no evidence of a well-grounded claim.

The Board has remanded the case due to additional evidence submitted by the appellant and the need to locate the veteran's service medical records.

The VA determined that the veteran's left shoulder shrapnel fragment wound residuals did not warrant an evaluation in excess of 20 percent prior to July 3, 1997 and under either old or new rating criteria after that date. The current evaluation remains at 20 percent.

The Board dismissed a motion for revision of a 1979 decision due to the lack of compliance with the requirements set forth in VA regulations.

The Board has determined that it does not have jurisdiction to decide the eligibility for direct payment of attorneys fees, as addressed by the Court in Scates v. Gober.

The Board denied a higher rating for the craniotomy defect, finding that the veteran's condition did not meet criteria warranting an increased evaluation beyond the current 10 percent.

The Board found that the veteran's right eye vision loss was not caused by the June 1993 VA surgical treatment, but rather due to diabetic retinopathy. The decision granted compensation benefits based on a finding of no negligence.

The veteran's service-connected squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue contributed to his death. Basic eligibility for Dependents' Educational Assistance under Chapter 35 is established.

The Board has determined that the veteran's chronic obstructive lung disease is likely to have developed during his period of active service and granted service connection based on exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam.

The veteran's claim for an original evaluation in excess of 10 percent for residuals of a fracture of the mandible with left facial pain/sensory loss is being remanded due to incomplete records and further examination.

The VA determined that the veteran's duodenal ulcer does not meet the criteria for a higher rating, as there is no evidence of active ulcers or recurrent symptoms more than once or twice yearly. The current 10 percent rating remains unchanged.

The Board denied both the claim for service connection for left eye disabilities and the request for an increased rating for postoperative residuals of a traumatic cataract in the right eye. The veteran's current visual acuity is normal in his non-service-connected left eye, which prevents him from receiving a higher rating.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claims for service connection for residuals of a head injury and nose disorder are not well grounded. The claim for increased rating for left hydrocele with orchialgia is also not established.

The Board denied the veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for carcinoma of the tongue and floor of mouth, finding no competent evidence linking his cancer to his military service or exposure to herbicides.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for status post myocardial infarction as there was no competent medical evidence linking his current heart disability to a disease or injury in service.

The Board has determined that the veteran's left thumb disability does not meet or approximate the criteria for a compensable rating under any applicable diagnostic code. The veteran's medical records do not show ankylosis, and his current range of motion is adequate.

The Board denied the appellant's claim of recognition as the veteran's surviving spouse for VA benefits due to a prior legal marriage between the veteran and his legal spouse, M.