Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to conflicting medical opinions and the need for a VA medical opinion on the nature and etiology of the Veteran's hip, pelvis, and groin disorders.

The Veteran's malaria is currently inactive and without current symptoms, thus the claim for an increased evaluation has been denied.

The Board has remanded the case for an examination and medical opinion to determine if any left lower extremity disability, including left hip arthritis, is secondary to or aggravated by the Veteran's service-connected left knee disability. The focus will be on whether the April 2007 injury caused or aggravated these conditions.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's current bilateral great toe dermatophytosis and chronic dry skin on his feet are related to service, while there is no evidence of a head injury during service.

The Board has remanded the case due to a lack of service treatment records for a ruptured ovarian cyst during active duty, and further development is needed.

The Board has granted service connection for dizziness associated with TMD and headaches, but the Veteran's claims for higher initial ratings for his headaches remain before the Board.

The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate explanation of VA's duty to assist and a need for clarification from Dr. Caralis regarding his August 2012 opinion on herbicide exposure.

The Board found that the Veteran's reported right foot disorder, claimed as trench foot, was not incurred or aggravated during active service and is not shown to have developed as a result of service. The claim for service connection is denied.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings for service-connected residuals of an ano-rectal abscess with closure of colostomy and disruption of the urethra were denied. The evidence did not support a higher rating than the current 30 percent assigned for the anos-rectal condition or the 20 percent currently assigned for the disruption of the urethra.

The Board has determined that there is no current disability manifested by a nodule in the left lung, and thus service connection cannot be granted.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of private medical care provided on February 1, 2010, as it did not meet the criteria for emergency treatment under VA regulations.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including obtaining medical opinions regarding the relationship between his claimed conditions and exposure to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for a bilateral leg disorder, residuals of a laceration to the eye (left eye), and right knee disorder. The claim for low back disorder is remanded.

The Board has remanded the case due to a lack of documentation regarding whether the Veteran withdrew from the LRP and received any benefit. The AOJ is instructed to obtain all relevant personnel records, including enlistment contracts and LPR obligation, and seek clarification on the Veteran's service status for purposes of Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits.

The Board has determined that a 40 percent rating is warranted for the Veteran's right lower extremity DVT from August 31, 2006 to May 6, 2009, based on persistent edema and stasis pigmentation.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including obtaining updated VA treatment records and a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed bilateral eye disorder.

The Veteran's claims for service connection were denied as new and material evidence was not provided to support the previously denied claims. The Board found that there is no current disability related to service or any other service-connected condition.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for further development, including a new VA examination to assess the current severity of his service-connected bilateral shin splints.

The Board has remanded the case for scheduling a DRO hearing and readjudicating the issue on appeal.

The Veteran's daughter submitted a claim for accrued benefits, but it was not filed within one year of the Veteran's death. Therefore, she is denied entitlement to accrued benefits.