Other conditions Board decisions

The Veteran's left hip disability, prior to October 27, 2008, is rated at 10 percent for arthritis with painful limitation of flexion. The claim for a higher rating remains denied.

The Board has granted service connection for the Veteran's left trapezius strain, finding that her current condition is related to a muscle pull she sustained during INACDUTRA service. The decision resolves doubt in favor of the Veteran.

The Veteran's sinus disorder is currently rated at 30 percent, effective from the date of claim. The Board finds that his symptoms are adequately compensated by this rating and does not meet the criteria for an extraschedular evaluation.

The Board denied the Veteran's appeal of his September 1994 decision denying educational assistance benefits, finding that he did not file a timely substantive appeal.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for dental and eye disabilities were denied as there was no evidence of disease or injury to the eyes during service, nor did he claim a superimposed injury. The Veteran's decreased visual acuity is due to refractive error and not a compensable disability.

The Board found that the Veteran's death was not caused by his active military service, and thus denied the claim for service connection for cause of death.

The Board denied a request for an earlier effective date of January 7, 2009 for the grant of a higher rate of DIC based on the need for aid and attendance.

The Veteran's left knee disability was not incurred in or aggravated by service, and the Board finds that continuity of symptomatology after service has not been demonstrated.

The Veteran's May 2007 heart attack, stent placement, and resulting emotional trauma were not caused by or aggravated by VA's discontinuation of Plavix in April 2007. The Board found no evidence of negligence on the part of VA.

The Veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses incurred at Freeman Cancer Institute in Joplin, Missouri, from August 2008 to September 2008 was denied because the services were not provided in a hospital emergency department and did not meet all criteria under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1725.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for numbness in the right leg was denied, and his initial rating for PTSD was granted at a 50 percent level effective September 14, 2009. The Veteran is requesting a higher rating for PTSD.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for gastrointestinal and nasal disorders are being remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining medical records and scheduling a VA examination.

The Veteran seeks reimbursement for unauthorized medical expenses of $1,660.95 incurred on March 18, 2009 at Bailey Medical Center. The appeal is remanded due to procedural deficiencies and lack of evidence regarding the Veteran's enrollment in VA healthcare system within the past 24 months.

The Board denied service connection for a pulmonary/respiratory disorder, finding that the available evidence did not establish a medical nexus between the Veteran's current condition and his military service.

The Veteran's claim for a higher evaluation and an earlier effective date for service connection were denied. The Board found that the earliest possible effective date is May 28, 2004, which was the date of receipt of his claim.

The Veteran's right eye disability, characterized by visual field constriction and diplopia, warrants a 20 percent initial rating from June 8, 2003 to December 31, 2006. From January 1, 2007 forward, the Veteran is entitled to a 30 percent initial rating for right eye disability.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for legal entitlement to the one-time payment from the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund due to a lack of qualified service.

The Veteran's surviving spouse is not eligible for a one-time payment from the FVEC fund because the Veteran did not file a claim for benefits at any time during his life.

The Board dismissed the appeal as the Appellant did not submit either a notice of disagreement or a substantive appeal from the January 2009 RO determination.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining VA treatment records and scheduling a VA examination to determine the etiology of any current allergy disability and left eye disability.