Other conditions Board decisions

The Board found that the claim for service connection for hiatal hernia with reflux as secondary to a service-connected disability is not well-grounded and therefore denied.

The Board finds that the evidence of record does not present an exceptional or unusual disability picture as to render impractical the application of the regular rating schedule standards. Therefore, there is no basis for assignment of an extraschedular rating.

The Board found that the overpayment of DIC benefits was not improperly created and thus denied the appeal.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claim of service connection for cardiovascular disease is well-grounded, and therefore VA must assist in developing facts pertinent to the claim. The case is remanded for further development.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for waiver of recovery of an overpayment of VA death pension benefits in the amount of $5,923 due to her failure to report changes in income from her deceased husband's retirement.

The Board found no evidence to support the veteran's claim for service connection of residuals of a back injury, concluding that his current condition is not related to any in-service event or disease.

The Board denied service connection for post-traumatic-stress-disorder (PTSD) due to the failure of the veteran to provide sufficient information to verify the claimed stressors, which are required for a grant of PTSD.

The veteran's claim for an increased rating of patello-femoral syndrome, bilaterally, rated as 10 percent disabling was denied because he failed to report for VA rating examinations scheduled in September 1997 and July 1998 without good cause shown.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have active conjunctivitis or residuals from service-connected eye contusions, and thus his current rating for residuals of eye contusions and conjunctivitis of the right eye is denied.

The Board has determined that the veteran's porphyria cutanea tarda is service-connected due to exposure to Agent Orange during his military service in Vietnam.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for conversion reaction and a temporary total rating based on hospitalization from April 14 to May 19, 1988. The appeal is not about service connection at all.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx as secondary to Agent Orange exposure due to a lack of evidence linking his current condition to his military service, including any potential herbicide exposure.

The veteran's unauthorized medical care and services for a cyst on his back were not rendered in a medical emergency, so the claim for payment or reimbursement is denied.

The VA surgery in March 1983 did not result in any additional disability of the right upper and lower extremities, according to medical evidence. The veteran's current symptoms are attributed to a natural progression of his cervical spondylosis.

The veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for sickle cell anemia was denied. The decision states that the earliest effective date is August 31, 1977, which is when the application to reopen the claim was received.

The Board denied both claims for increased ratings, finding that the veteran's service-connected disabilities did not meet the criteria for a compensable rating.

The Board has determined that the veteran's residuals of a fracture of the right fourth metacarpal do not warrant an evaluation in excess of 10 percent.

The veteran's request for waiver of a debt resulting from overpayment of VA pension benefits was denied due to fraud in the creation of the debt.

The Board has denied a higher evaluation for postoperative excisions of multiple lipomas to the forearms, finding that the evidence does not support an evaluation in excess of 10 percent.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of chicken pox, claiming it as a skin condition on various body parts. The decision stated that there was no evidence to support a causal relationship between his current skin disorder and his in-service treatment.