Other conditions Board decisions

The Board granted the appellant's request to substitute as claimant for the Veteran's pending appeal, based on her timely filing of a VA Form 21-0847 and payment of expenses related to the Veteran's last sickness and burial. The decision is not about service connection.

The Board denied compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for pelvic pain and voiding dysfunction, finding no evidence of VA error causing the Veteran's symptoms.

The Veteran's cause of death, colon cancer, was determined to be due to his exposure to Agent Orange during service. The Board granted service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death based on this presumption.

The Veteran's costochondritis is rated at a noncompensable rating, and the Board has granted an initial 10 percent rating for this condition.

The Board has determined that the Veteran does not have a current disability of chronic bilateral otitis externa (claimed as bilateral ear sores) and therefore, service connection for this condition is denied.

The Veteran's death was caused by congestive heart failure, which is service-connected based on the evidence of record. The Board found that the cause of death was related to his service-connected condition.

The Veteran's cause of death, sepsis and neuroendocrine lung tumor, was not linked to his military service or any service-connected disabilities. Therefore, the claim for service connection for the cause of death is denied.

The Board has remanded two issues: entitlement to increased ratings for residuals of a right elbow fracture and right median sensory loss of the right hand. The Veteran needs new VA examinations to assess the current severity of his service-connected conditions.

The Veteran's cause of death was due to a probable pulmonary embolus, not related to service or any service-connected condition. The Board denied the claim for service connection for the cause of death.

The Veteran is seeking compensation for anal fistulas, which she believes were caused by VA's failure to properly diagnose and treat rectal damage. The Board has determined that the current medical opinion is inadequate and requires a remand for further examination.

The Board denied a rating in excess of 20 percent for the Veteran's seventh cranial nerve paralysis/degeneration, finding that there was not evidence of complete paralysis and thus no basis to grant an increased rating.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim of service connection for an eye condition, including macular degeneration, finding that there is no evidence linking his current eye condition to his active duty service.

The Veteran's appeal for VA loan guaranty benefits was dismissed due to her death, and the Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this appeal.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to the need for a VA examination and additional records, as there is a possibility of a nexus between the Veteran's current disability and service, including exposure to Agent Orange.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for service connection for urticarial-type lesions, basal cell carcinoma, and seborrheic keratosis due to herbicide agent exposure. The VA examiner is required to provide an opinion on whether these conditions are related to his military service.

The Board denied the Veteran's request for a waiver of overpayment due to his fugitive felon status, finding that he was at fault and that recovery would be against equity and good conscience.

The Veteran's TDIU claim is remanded due to its inextricability with the increased ratings for his hip conditions. The matter of increased ratings for trochanteric bursitis of both hips remains pending.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to the need for additional service records and a VA examination to determine if the Veteran has a neuromuscular disorder related to her allergic reaction to the flu shot during military service.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims of service connection for left foot condition, right foot condition, and gastrointestinal condition due to lack of an adequate opinion regarding their etiology.

The Board has not fully complied with previous remand directives and the case is being returned for further development.