Other conditions Board decisions

The Veteran's inpatient hospitalization at St. John's Hospital from November 5-10, 2008 was not authorized by VA and the services received were deemed unauthorized. The Board found that payment or reimbursement for these expenses is denied as they did not meet the criteria set forth under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1728.

The Veteran's currently diagnosed HPV infection had its onset during military service, and the Board has determined that the criteria for service connection are met.

The Board finds that the Veteran's Lewy body disease is at least as likely as not related to his in-service exposure, given its close relationship to Parkinson's disease for which presumptive service connection is warranted.

The Board has determined that the Veteran does not have a diagnosed eye disorder related to service or secondary to his service-connected diabetes mellitus. The Board also found no evidence of cataracts being related to service.

The Board has decided to remand the case for further development, including a VA examination and opinion regarding the Veteran's right elbow disability.

The Veteran's cardiovascular disability has been characterized as residuals of a radiofrequency ablation with an atrioseptal defect and tricuspid regurgitation. The VA denied her request for an initial rating in excess of 10 percent, finding that the evidence did not show a workload capacity of greater than 5 but less than 7 METs or cardiac hypertrophy/dilation.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's MDS is related to service and grants service connection for this condition.

The Veteran's pension benefits were terminated due to his status as a fugitive felon, resulting in an overpayment of $76,010.00. The Board found that recovery would be against equity and good conscience, thus granting the waiver.

The Board has granted the appellant's claim for recognition as the Veteran's surviving spouse, allowing her to receive VA benefits.

The Veteran is seeking service connection for chronic venous insufficiency and bilateral lower extremity edema, which he claims are secondary to his service-connected diabetes mellitus. The appeal also includes a request for TDIU. These issues have been remanded due to the need for a hearing before the Board.

The Board has determined that the Claimant is entitled to recognition as the surviving spouse of the Veteran for purposes of receiving VA death benefits, based on her marriage and cohabitation with the Veteran.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection and increased evaluations, finding that there was no clear and unmistakable error in their decisions.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's chest disorder is not related to his active military service and therefore denied his claim for service connection.

The Veteran's lung disability, manifested by spontaneous pneumothoraces with successful thoracoscopic blebectomy, has not resulted in any impairment that would warrant a compensable evaluation under the applicable rating criteria.

The Veteran's ulcerative colitis and precancerous polyps are presumed to be due to exposure to Agent Orange. However, the VA examiner found no evidence of a causal relationship between these conditions and his service or herbicide exposure.

The Board has remanded the case for further development due to a change in the hearing officer, and the appellant is requested to clarify her current address and preferred RO for the scheduled video conference hearing.

The Veteran died due to ALS, but his service with the Merchant Marine did not qualify for VA compensation and pension purposes. The Board denied DIC because he did not have qualifying active duty service.

The Veteran's laceration of the right index finger resulted in limitation of motion and pain, but not to a degree that warranted a compensable rating prior to May 20, 2009. Since May 20, 2009, his condition has been rated as 10 percent disabling.

The Veteran's duodenal ulcer is currently evaluated at a 10% rating, and the Board finds no evidence of symptoms warranting a higher evaluation.

The Board found that the appellant did not meet the criteria for recognition as the surviving spouse of the Veteran for purposes of establishing eligibility for VA death benefits due to a separation by mutual consent.