Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has granted increased evaluations for Graves ophthalmopathy and exposure keratitis due to proptosis and lagophthalmos, with the former receiving a 10 percent evaluation and the latter a 20 percent evaluation.

The Veteran's claim for dependency benefits was received by VA on May 19, 2009. The effective date of the award is June 1, 2009.

The Board found no credible evidence of an in-service injury or subsequent symptoms, and thus denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a degenerative disorder of the spine.

The Veteran's request for educational assistance benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill is remanded due to his failure to appear at a scheduled hearing and his subsequent requests for a new hearing date. A videoconference hearing will be scheduled.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding whether the Veteran's condition contraindicates use of a powered mobility device. The Veteran is seeking entitlement to a powered mobility device, but his claim will be further evaluated based on new medical examination results.

The Veteran's residuals of a shell fragment wound to muscle group XI of the right leg have been rated as moderately severe since July 1971. The Board has determined that his symptoms warrant an increased rating from 10% to 20%.

The Board has determined that additional evidence is needed to substantiate the claim, and thus remands the case back to the VA for further development.

The Board has ordered the case to be remanded for further development due to incomplete records and inadequate opinions. The AOJ must obtain missing VA examination reports, locate a relevant letter from the Veteran's family physician, and conduct new examinations or obtain new opinions as requested.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to his absence from the scheduled hearing. A new hearing will be arranged at the Detroit RO.

The Board found that the Veteran's left great toe disability, which resulted in a fracture and laceration during service, does not meet or approximate the criteria for a rating higher than 20 percent.

The Veteran's right lung condition has been rated at 60 percent since March 30, 2006. The VA determined that the Veteran met criteria for a 60 percent evaluation based on his pulmonary function tests showing restrictive ventilatory abnormality.

The Board has remanded the case for further development and an opinion regarding whether squamous cell carcinoma of the left tonsil is related to herbicide exposure in Vietnam.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's left inguinal herniorrhaphy does not meet the criteria for a disability rating higher than 10 percent.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining VA and private treatment records, addressing the Veteran's claim for service connection for cerebrovascular accident (claimed as stroke) due to his service-connected diabetes mellitus type II. The examiner is asked to determine if the Veteran's cerebrovascular accident was incurred during or within one year of active duty, or caused by or secondary to his service-connected diabetes.

The Veteran's income exceeded the maximum annual rate for non-service-connected pension benefits, thus his claim was denied.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for an increased evaluation for urticaria and angioedema, finding that the evidence did not support a rating higher than 10 percent.

The Board has granted the Veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral patellofemoral arthritis as secondary to his service-connected bilateral plantar fasciitis.

The Board has determined that additional development is necessary before the claim can be fully adjudicated, including obtaining updated medical records and scheduling a VA examination to assess the severity of the Veteran's postoperative varicocele with ilio-inguinal nerve pain.

The Board has determined that the proper effective date for the reduction in the Veteran's disability compensation benefits due to incarceration for a felony conviction is November [redacted], 2005.

The Board has ordered a remand due to the need for additional medical examinations and records, as well as further development of the claim.