Other conditions Board decisions

A rating of 30 percent for hidradenitis suppurativa, a skin disorder, is granted from May 24, 2010.

The Veteran's appeal has been dismissed due to his death. The Board does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this case.

The Board denied service connection for residuals of left elbow and left leg fractures, finding that the evidence does not support a causal relationship between these disabilities and the Veteran's service-connected heart disability.

The Board has remanded the TDIU claim due to unclear income information and incomplete employment history. The Veteran needs to provide his own income statements from his employers, as well as annual SSA earnings reports.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for additional development, including obtaining SSA records and a medical opinion regarding whether the Veteran's chronic pain is caused by VA treatment.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for chronic tremors, finding that there was no evidence of a nexus between his current condition and active duty service or any service-connected disability.

The Board has remanded the case due to issues related to an apportionment in excess of $150 per month for the appellant on behalf of D.T., the Veteran's child. The remand includes ensuring full compliance with contested claims procedures, notifying the appellant about requirements for a minor child to continue receiving an apportionment after turning 18 years old, and obtaining necessary documentation regarding D.T.'s educational pursuits and receipt of DEA Chapter 35 benefits.

The Veteran's claim for a higher rating for his left Achilles' tendon disability was denied as the evidence did not show ankylosis, which is required for a higher rating.,The Veteran's claim for a compensable rating for his left Achilles' tendon scar was also denied because the scars did not meet the criteria for a compensable rating under any applicable diagnostic codes.

The Veteran withdrew her appeal for medical reimbursement for an emergency room visit on July 11, 2016 at Gundersen Lutheran Medical Center.

The Veteran's appeal for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) has been withdrawn by the appellant, resulting in the dismissal of his appeal.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient medical opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran's left foot disorder, specifically lost mobility of his left great toe.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient medical opinions regarding whether the Veteran's bladder impairment is related to his service-connected conditions or if it was aggravated by them. The VA needs to obtain additional treatment records and provide addendum opinions on these issues.

The Board has determined that a medical opinion from an appropriate urologist is needed to address whether the Veteran's chronic pelvic pain/bladder pain/prostate pain syndrome is caused or aggravated by his service-connected bilateral lower extremity disabilities. The case is being remanded for this purpose.

The Board has remanded the claim for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to an alleged opinion from Dr. Y, who testified was treating the Veteran and opined he is unemployable. The VA needs to attempt to obtain this record and ensure all current VA treatment reports are of record.

The Veteran's appeal for a higher disability rating and TDIU prior to September 15, 2018 is being remanded due to incomplete development. The VA examiner will need to assess the extent of instability in the left knee and provide range-of-motion findings under both old and new criteria.

The Veteran's left eye disability, including Cystoid Macular Edema and Scleritis, is deemed to be a result of the VA cataract surgery performed on February 28, 2012. The Board finds that this additional disability was not reasonably foreseeable and grants compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151.

The Board dismissed the claim of total disability rating based upon individual unemployability (TDIU) as it was not properly before the Board.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to the need for a medical opinion regarding whether the Veteran's chronic pain disorder is separate from his service-connected disabilities and if it is related to his Gulf War service.

The Board has remanded the case due to a lack of evidence regarding the Veteran's income and unreimbursed medical expenses as of his 65th birthday, which is necessary for calculating pension eligibility.

The Veteran's esophageal cancer was not caused by an in-service event, illness, or injury and it is not a disease considered to be caused by exposure to herbicide agents. Therefore, the claim of entitlement to service connection for esophageal cancer is denied.