Other conditions Board decisions

The Board denied service connection for bilateral dry eye syndrome, bilateral leg pain, and an increased rating for optic neuritis of the left eye. The Veteran's claims were based on direct service connection rather than secondary or aggravation.

The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date than January 10, 2008, for a grant of service connection for pericarditis is dismissed as it cannot be collaterally attacked by filing a freestanding earlier effective date claim.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded to determine if his stroke residuals are secondary or aggravated by his service-connected cerebral ataxia.

The Veteran's somatic symptom disorder is rated at 70 percent prior to November 27, 2017 and denied for a higher rating thereafter. The decision does not address service connection theory or exposure basis.

The Veteran's appeals for increased ratings in excess of 10 percent for his knee conditions have been dismissed due to the death of the Veteran during the appeal process.

The Veteran's daughter applied for Chapter 35 DEA benefits prior to October 31, 2014. The appellant did not elect a start date within the required 60 days and was assigned an effective date of October 31, 2014. As such, her retroactive request is denied.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's gastric ulcer is related to his active service, granting service connection for this condition.

The Veteran's appeal regarding an earlier effective date for the award of service connection for multiple myeloma has been dismissed as his attorney withdrew the appeal in a March 2020 statement.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient medical opinion regarding whether the Veteran's preexisting fracture of the right sternoclavicular joint was aggravated by service.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding whether the Veteran's allergy to poison ivy and/or poison oak existed prior to service. The examiner is asked to provide an opinion on this matter.

The veteran's service was less than 90 days and he was discharged due to unfitness, not a service-connected disability. Therefore, he is denied eligibility for VA home loan guaranty benefits.

The Board has decided that the Veteran's claims for service connection for right and left eye conditions, which are secondary to nonservice-connected histoplasmosis mediastinal lymph glands, need further examination and opinion due to incomplete records and a previous denial of the claim.

The Veteran's claims for initial compensable ratings for his service-connected right proximal index finger and right ring finger disabilities are being remanded due to incomplete medical records and inadequate examination reports.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for earlier effective dates due to a lack of clarity in the SOC and the need to obtain additional medical records.

The Veteran's right knee patellofemoral dysfunction is currently rated at 10 percent, with a separate 10 percent rating for painful motion. The Board found no evidence of instability or other conditions warranting higher ratings. The appeal is mixed as some issues were granted and others denied.

The Board has remanded the claim for a liver disability, including as due to PTSD-related alcoholism, due to insufficient medical evidence and the need for an examination.

A rating of 10 percent, but no higher, for right thumb dislocation is granted.,A rating of 10 percent, but no higher, for postoperative scarring of the face is granted.

The Board has remanded the claims for an initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent for acetabular impingement syndrome (AIS) of the right hip with sacroiliac dysfunction, limitation of extension of the right hip, and limitation of abduction, adduction, and rotation of the right thigh and hip. The remand requires a new VA examination to evaluate the current severity of these conditions.

The Veteran's appeal was dismissed because the appellant, through his authorized representative, requested to withdraw the appeal prior to a decision being made.

The Board has determined that the matter is not ripe for appellate review due to procedural issues and remands it for compliance with contested claims procedures.