Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to incomplete adjudication of the proposed rating reductions and TDIU claim.

The Board finds that the Veteran's urinary disorder was not present in service or until many years thereafter, and it is not related to service or to an incident of service origin. The Board also found that the Veteran's urinary disorder was not caused or aggravated by a service-connected disability.

The Board has granted service connection for iliotibial band syndrome of the left knee. The Veteran's claims for increased ratings for her left ankle sprain and left hip bursitis are remanded.

The Board denied service connection for muscle pain, described as shooting nerve pain in the arms. The Veteran's increased rating claim for right knee patellofemoral syndrome was also denied. The TDIU claim is pending.

The Board has ordered a remand to obtain additional medical evidence regarding the level of exposure to benzene during active service and its potential connection to the Veteran's cause of death from myelogenous leukemia (AML).

The Board has determined that the Veteran's left foot disorder, diagnosed as degenerative joint disease of the subtalar and metatarsal joints, is not related to his service or any incident therein. The claim for secondary service connection based on PTSD was also denied.

The Veteran does not have a current right upper extremity neurologic disability, and the Board finds that any such disability is not related to service or his service-connected right thumb scar. As such, he cannot establish service connection for this condition.

The Veteran's right hip impairment due to a shrapnel wound is now rated at the highest possible level of disability, with a 50% rating.

The Board has remanded the case due to a failure to inquire into updated discharge paperwork from the Naval Discharge Review Board or the Board for Correction of Naval Records. The Veteran's claim will be reconsidered after obtaining his service personnel records.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal for an initial compensable evaluation for exostosis, right heel.

The Veteran's left great toe fracture has been rated as 10 percent disabling since November 5, 2012. The rating is based on the current functional impairment of the left great toe.

The Board has determined that a valid common-law marriage existed between the Appellant and Veteran for the purpose of VA benefits, based on evidence showing they lived together as husband and wife in Alabama.

The Veteran's daughter was denied accrued benefits in excess of $2,186.62 as she did not meet the statutory definition of a child and had already been reimbursed for burial expenses.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded due to the need for additional VA treatment records and a new VA examination. The case will be readjudicated after these actions.

The Veteran's patellofemoral syndrome of the right knee is currently rated at 10 percent disabling, effective May 16, 2003. His limitation of extension is also rated at 40 percent.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's current left eye disabilities, including a macular hole and vision loss, are not related to chemical exposure or other events in service. The evidence does not support a finding of direct service connection for these conditions.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including scheduling a VA examination and considering additional evidence submitted by the Veteran. The issues of an increased rating for right knee disorder and TDIU are also being addressed.

The Veteran's self-employment as a 'drywaller' was considered substantial gainful employment until January 18, 2008. The Board found that the Veteran did not meet the threshold requirement for TDIU due to his substantially and gainfully employed status.

The Veteran's spine disability, which includes a compression fracture and spondylolysis at L2-3, has been rated as 40 percent disabling since January 23, 2012. The rating is in excess of what the Veteran was originally granted prior to that date.

The Veteran's appeal for special monthly compensation has been dismissed as the appellant withdrew his appeal prior to a decision being made.