Other conditions Board decisions

The Board found that the Veteran's service-connected bilateral eye disability, manifested by corrected visual acuity of 20/25 in the right eye and HM@2'(hand motions at 2 feet) in the left eye, does not warrant a rating in excess of 30 percent.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a low back disability, including spina bifida. The decision found that his condition existed prior to service and was not aggravated by service.

The Veteran's recurrent basal cell carcinoma and its residuals are in part related to sun exposure while in service, and the Board grants service connection for these conditions.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, finding that there was no evidence linking his condition to active duty or exposure to ionizing radiation.

The Board found that the Veteran's cause of death (CVA, hemorrhage, and thrombosis) is not etiologically related to a disease, injury, or event in service. The Veteran's service-connected GSW residuals were not a principal nor contributory cause of his death.

The Veteran's service-connected postgastrectomy syndrome is currently rated at 40 percent, but the symptoms do not meet or approximate the criteria for a higher rating under Diagnostic Code 7308.

The Board found no evidence of current disability related to heat stroke and denied the Veteran's claim for service connection.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's current pulmonary disorder is related to his military service and grants service connection for a pulmonary disorder.

The Veteran's left knee disability, diagnosed as mild intrasubstance degeneration of the medial meniscus, was not incurred in military service and is not secondary to his service-connected left knee scar.

The Veteran's claims for a higher rating for his left humerus fracture and service connection for loss of use of the left hand are being remanded due to additional evidence submitted by the Veteran.

The Veteran's claim for a bilateral foot disorder, to include as secondary to service-connected residuals of shell fragment wounds, was denied because there is no competent evidence showing a current diagnosis related to his military service or any incident therein.

The Veteran's dysthymic disorder was increased to a 70% rating, effective December 1, 2008. The case is remanded for clarification of the basis for this increase and re-adjudication of the TDIU issue.

The Veteran's claim for nonservice-connected pension benefits was denied as he did not have qualifying wartime service.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal for the overpayment of educational assistance benefits, resulting in the dismissal of the case.

The Board found no evidence of a lung disability in service or related to service, including asbestos exposure. The Veteran's claim for bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy was also denied as there is no credible evidence linking the condition to herbicide exposure.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for a Travel Board hearing and further development. The issues of entitlement to an increased evaluation for spondylolisthesis and spondylolysis, and TDIU are pending.

The Veteran's skin condition of the bilateral lower extremities/feet and back, as well as his face and neck, has been rated at 30 percent since September 14, 2005.

The Board found that the overpayment of DIC benefits in the original amount of $242,780.00 was validly created due to the appellant's failure to report her marital status properly and continued cohabitation with a subsequent spouse after receiving DIC benefits. The Board also determined that waiver of recovery of the overpayment is not warranted because it is precluded by law.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for a new medical examination and additional development of records, including SSA disability benefits records.

The Veteran seeks compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for a chronic cardiac condition allegedly caused by VA treatment in September 2005, January 2006, and March 2006. The claim is remanded due to the need for informed consent documentation.