Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining medical records and Social Security Administration records. The claims will be reconsidered after this development.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for additional surviving spouse DIC benefits prior to May 1, 1974, based on C.C. being a dependent child due to lack of legal basis and failure to file a new claim in light of the change in law.

The Board has determined that the overpayment of VA education benefits in the amount of $258.83 was validly created due to the Veteran's withdrawal from a course, and there were no mitigating circumstances.

The Board has remanded the case to the VAMC in New Orleans, Louisiana for further action including an audit of the appellant's account. The VA will notify the appellant if further action is required.

The Board dismissed the appeal due to the death of the appellant.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for a new hearing before an Acting Veterans Law Judge at the RO.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for a hearing before the Board at the RO. The issues of entitlement to service connection for generalized body pain and fatigue, as well as an increased rating for IBS, are on appeal.

The Veteran has withdrawn his appeal for payment or reimbursement of private medical services provided on November 4, 2011. The Board finds jurisdiction moot and dismisses the appeal.

The Board has granted service connection for arthritis of the right hip, finding that it had its onset in service and resolving all reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran.

The Veteran's iritis has been rated at 20 percent since January 9, 2009. The Board found that an initial rating of 10 percent is warranted prior to this date due to the severity of his symptoms, but denied a higher rating as his condition did not meet the criteria for a rating in excess of 20 percent from January 9, 2009.

The Veteran's right trapezius strain of the dominant (right) shoulder is rated at 30 percent, effective November 30, 2010.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for a left leg disorder, which he contends is related to his service-connected lumbar spine disability, was denied as there is no current diagnosis of such a condition.

The Board found that the Veteran's genitourinary disabilities were not related to his service, and thus denied his claim for service connection.

The Board found that the appellant is not a veteran of the United States Armed Forces and therefore ineligible for benefits from the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund.

The Board has determined that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of interstitial parotitis or a jaw disability for which service connection can be awarded. The in-service parotitis is considered to have resolved many years prior, and there is no evidence of recurrence.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings and service connection were denied. The Board found that the Veteran's left second toe injury resulted in a 10% disability rating, but his left foot degenerative joint disease did not have onset during service or is not related to service. His bilateral knee and back disabilities are not service-connected.

The Board has reopened the Veteran's claim for service connection for endometriosis and granted her claim, finding that new evidence supports a link between her current condition and active duty.

The Veteran's upper-mid back pain is currently rated at 20 percent, the maximum schedular rating available under the General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine.

The Board denied an earlier effective date for the addition of the Veteran's spouse and son as dependents, finding that the earliest response to VA's request for specific information regarding their identity was on December 3, 2008. The effective date assigned is January 1, 2009.

The Veteran's treatment at Cape Coral Hospital on December 1, 2008 was not rendered in a medical emergency of such nature that delay would have been hazardous to life or health. Therefore, the criteria for payment or reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses were not met.