Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has remanded the claim for an initial compensable evaluation for scars of the bilateral upper extremities due to discoid lupus, as there is a need for further examination and opinion regarding the severity of the Veteran's disability since May 2009.

The Board has remanded the case due to issues with obtaining missing in-patient hospital records and addressing conflicting evidence regarding scarring and eye involvement.

The Board has determined that there is insufficient information in the audit to properly determine if the overpayment of educational assistance benefits was created. The case is being remanded for further development and clarification.

The Veteran's claim for a higher rating for residuals of cancer of the palate, status-post surgery is denied as there is no evidence of active malignancy or treatment during the appeal period.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to inadequate opinions regarding service connection for UTIs, which may be related to service or secondary to a service-connected condition. The Veteran's lay statements and medical records will need to be considered in detail.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for porphyria cutanea tarda is remanded due to the need for a VA examination and further review of his exposure history.

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.

The Veteran's claim for nonservice-connected pension was denied because his income exceeded the maximum annual pension rate (MAPR). The Board found that he did not provide necessary information to substantiate his claim.

The Veteran's left leg peripheral vascular disease (LLE PVD) was denied a rating in excess of 40 percent prior to November 12, 2009.,The Veteran's right leg peripheral vascular disease (RLE PVD) was denied a rating in excess of 40 percent between November 12, 2009 and April 28, 2011. After that date, the RLE PVD was also denied a rating in excess of 40 percent.

The Veteran's surviving spouse claim is denied as the state of Nevada does not recognize common law marriage, and the Appellant has failed to provide evidence that she was unaware of this legal impediment.

The Veteran's claim for higher-level special monthly compensation was received on October 10, 2007. The effective date of the grant is October 10, 2007.

The Veteran's death was not caused by a service-connected condition, and his DIC claim is denied. The effective date for the 100% disability rating for bilateral hearing loss cannot be earlier than January 14, 2015.

The appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's death, and no service connection issues were decided.

The Board denied the claim as the Appellant did not meet the requirements to be recognized as the Veteran's surviving spouse for VA benefits purposes, including for the purpose of receiving DIC benefits, survivors' pension, and/or accrued benefits.

The Board found that the grant of service connection for squamous cell carcinoma (base of tongue) was clearly and unmistakably erroneous due to it not being a disease covered by presumptive provisions, thus severing service connection.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for colon and/or rectal cancer, to include lymphoma, as it was not incurred in or aggravated by his service, including exposure to herbicide agents.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for an initial compensable rating for testicular cancer residuals, finding that his current noncompensable rating adequately reflects all of his residuals from the condition. The decision also noted that he was already receiving a 10 percent rating for limitation of flexion in the left leg and myositis of the left vastus lateralis muscle.

The Board has decided to remand the cases for further examination and review due to issues related to the Veteran's competency in handling VA funds and the propriety of his fiduciary appointment.

The Board has granted service connection for ocular histoplasmosis, finding that the Veteran's loss of vision was aggravated by his service-connected diabetes mellitus.

The Board found that the appellant was the legal spouse of the veteran at the time of his death and there is no indication she was remarried or held herself out as the spouse of another. The separation between them did not break the continuity of cohabitation due to fault on either party's part.