Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has not reopened the claims for chronic back, skin and foot disabilities due to lack of new and material evidence. The claim for residuals of food poisoning is still pending.

The Board denied the veteran's request to reopen his claim for service connection of distal muscular dystrophy due to lack of new and material evidence.

The Board found no additional disability resulting from the November 1996 VA surgical procedure and denied all claims for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151.

The Board determined that the veteran's countable annual income was excessive in light of the governing law and regulations, thus denying his appeal for non-service-connected pension benefits.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for a left hip injury and hypoglycemia, finding that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen these previously denied claims.

The veteran's claims for service connection for diarrhea and a skin rash are being remanded due to the need for additional VA medical records, including those from prior to January 1996. The veteran is advised to submit any relevant private treatment records.

The Board has determined that a clear picture of the veteran's current disability does not exist and remands the case for further examination to determine the nature and severity of any neurological and psychological disorder, including dementia due to head trauma.

The Board denied an increased evaluation for residuals of right inguinal hernia, finding no evidence of current impairment that would warrant a compensable rating.

The Board found that the veteran's service-connected traumatic arthritis of the right acromioclavicular joint does not meet the criteria for a disability evaluation in excess of 20 percent.

The Board is unable to determine if the appellant's nervous condition was first manifested during service, as his service medical records are unavailable. The case will be remanded for further development of the record.

The VA determined that the veteran's varicose veins, right leg, status post veniligation warrant a 40 percent evaluation.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including obtaining medical records and arranging for a VA examination to assess the severity of his pituitary adenoma.

The VA has determined that the appellant's right index and middle finger injuries, which are currently rated at 20 percent disabling, do not warrant a higher evaluation.

The Board denied an increased rating for the veteran's residuals of Bell's Palsy, finding that the evidence did not support a higher disability rating.

The Board found that the veteran's claim for waiver of overpayment was not precluded by fraud, misrepresentation or bad faith. The RO is now instructed to consider the elements of equity and good conscience in this case.

The Board denied the appellant's claims for overpayment of death pension benefits and her son's separate entitlement to pension benefits. The decision found that the appellant had not shown her son was a 'helpless child' by VA definition, and thus did not have legal entitlement to pension benefits.

The Board has denied the veteran's claim for service connection for a chronic skin disorder, including miliaria rubra and actinic keratosis, as there is no competent evidence relating any current skin disability to service or an incident of service origin.

The veteran's service-connected bilateral tibial stress fracture residuals are manifested by complaints of pain on overuse, but no malunion of the tibia with related knee or ankle disability or a related functional loss of a compensable degree due to pain is demonstrated. Therefore, an increased rating for these disabilities is denied.

The Board found that the veteran's residuals of a gunshot wound to the pleural cavity, left posterior chest wall warrant a 20 percent disability rating under the new Diagnostic Code 6843. The evidence did not support higher ratings.

The Board determined that the overpayment of $3,408 in pension benefits was not created due to bad faith on the part of the veteran. The decision concludes that recovery would not be against equity and good conscience.