Other conditions Board decisions

The Board denied the Veteran's request to reopen his claim for service connection for a testicular disorder, finding that no new and material evidence had been presented.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's bilateral pes cavus of the left and right feet had its onset in service, resolving all reasonable doubt in his favor. Therefore, the claim for service connection is granted.

The Board has remanded the case for adjudication of whether there was CUE in a July 1981 rating decision that failed to award TDIU due to service-connected disabilities. The DIC claim is also being considered, and all appropriate procedures must be followed.

The Board found that a duodenal ulcer was not incurred in or aggravated by active service and could not be presumed to have been incurred due to the one-year period post-service. The VA examiner concluded that the Veteran's current duodenal ulcer is less likely related to his service.

The Board has remanded the case to the RO for additional action, including scheduling a VA examination and obtaining records from SUNY Plattsburgh and Dr. Miller with Appletree Bay Medical Center.

The Veteran's death was not caused by a service-connected disability, and the appellant is not entitled to DIC benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1318 or death pension benefits due to her daughter status.

The Veteran's countable income exceeds the applicable maximum annual pension rates (MAPRs) for his situation, resulting in a denial of non-service-connected disability pension benefits.

The Veteran's claim for an initial rating in excess of 20 percent for decreased sensation and strength of the right lower extremity is being remanded due to the need for additional development, including scheduling a VA examination and obtaining relevant medical records.

The Board denied service connection for painful joints and a sleep disorder as there is no evidence of such conditions in service or within one year post-service, and the Veteran did not provide sufficient medical evidence to establish continuity of symptomatology.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete information regarding the Veteran's service in Vietnam and his exposure to Agent Orange. The claim for accrued benefits is also being remanded as there was no timely filing of a claim.

The Board has determined that a VA examination is needed to determine the nature and etiology of any current TMJ dysfunction, as well as whether it is related to service.

The Veteran's service did not qualify him for VA nonservice-connected disability pension benefits due to lack of qualifying service. The claim is denied.

The Veteran is granted an effective date of October 17, 1997 for the grant of service connection for demyelinating disease.

The Veteran is seeking service connection for a gastrointestinal disability. The case is being remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining private medical records from Drs. S. Gladney and G. Barst.

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

The Veteran does not have aortic stenosis that is related to his service, and the Board finds that he did not incur this condition during active duty.

The Veteran's claim for an increased rating for his service-connected adenocarcinoma of the prostate, post cryosurgery with neurogenic bladder was denied. The current disability rating remains at 40 percent.

The Board denied the appellant's claim to be recognized as the Veteran's surviving spouse for VA death benefits purposes due to a lack of legal, ceremonial marriage and no deemed valid marriage. The appellant and the Veteran were legally divorced in 1987.

The Veteran's claim for an increased rating for irritable bowel syndrome was denied. The appeal of the March 13, 1961 rating decision recharacterizing gastrocoloptosis as psychophysiologic gastrointestinal reaction and reducing its rating to zero percent is dismissed due to subsumption by a later Board decision.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of uterine cancer, status post hysterectomy is being remanded due to the need for a DRO hearing.