Other conditions Board decisions

The Board found that the reduction of the veteran's disability rating for encephalopathy from 30 percent to noncompensable in October 1950 was not clear and unmistakable error, as there was no evidence of a current disabling condition.

The Board found that the veteran's gastric cancer (adenocarcinoma of the stomach) was incurred in service, specifically his service in Vietnam.

The veteran's claim for a total disability evaluation due to individual unemployability has been dismissed because the veteran died during the appeal process.

The Board denied a claim for an increased rating for pterygium of the right eye, finding that the veteran's visual acuity and fields were not worse than 20/50 prior to May 1997 when he was granted service connection for optic atrophy. The current maximum rating for loss of vision in one eye is 30%, which includes the pterygium.

The VA determined that the veteran's degenerative joint disease of the great toes does not warrant a compensable rating, as there is no limitation of range of motion or definite tenderness. The veteran's symptoms are constant but do not meet criteria for higher ratings.

The veteran's claims for increased evaluations of his peripheral vascular disease of the lower extremities with postoperative residuals of multiple bypass grafts are addressed. Prior to January 12, 1998, a rating in excess of 50 percent was not warranted. Since January 12, 1998, a rating of 40 percent for the left lower extremity and 20 percent for the right lower extremity are warranted.

The VA has determined that the veteran's residuals of a gunshot wound to the right arm do not warrant a compensable evaluation, as there is no evidence of limitation of function or muscle injury resulting from the condition.

The veteran's claim for increased compensation for service-connected residuals of fractured right and left fifth metacarpals was granted, resulting in past-due benefits. The attorney is eligible to receive a fee from these past-due benefits based on the corrected effective date.

The Board found that the veteran's income exceeded the allowable limit for section 306 pension, leading to its termination in January 1993. The overpayment of $2,288 was created and denied a waiver by the Committee on Waivers and Compromises (COWC). The Board concluded that recovery would not be against equity and good conscience as the veteran's income exceeded the allowable limit for pension benefits.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for colon cancer due to exposure to ionizing radiation, finding that the preponderance of evidence is against his claim.

The Board found that the veteran's service records did not show a confirmed fracture of the right foot, and thus denied his claim for service connection.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for waiver of recovery of an overpayment of improved death pension benefits, finding that collection would not violate principles of equity and good conscience.

The Board found no current disability of leg or shin splints and denied the veteran's claim for service connection.

The Board found that there is no medical evidence relating the veteran's postoperative carcinoma of the colon to service or a service-connected disability, including as secondary to his service-connected hypertrophic gastritis. Therefore, the claim for service connection was denied.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claim for service connection for multiple lipomas, including as due to Agent Orange exposure, is not well grounded and therefore denied.

The veteran's appeal for service connection for a nervous disorder was dismissed because he did not file an adequate substantive appeal within the required time frame.

The Board denied increased ratings for the veteran's service-connected fractures of the right and left taluses, finding that the disabilities did not meet criteria for a higher rating.

The Board has granted the veteran's claim to receive additional compensation for his dependent spouse, [redacted], effective from September 21, 1978. The RO previously denied this claim due to the veteran not providing information about prior marriages and separation dates within a year of being requested.

The VA determined that there is no current evidence of a pterygium of the right eye or loss of vision due to it, and thus denied an increased rating for this condition.

The veteran's death was not due to a service-connected condition, and the appellant did not appeal this decision. The case was reopened in 1993 when she submitted a new claim for DIC benefits, which was granted with an effective date of May 1, 1993.