Other conditions Board decisions

The Veteran's claim for service connection for a bilateral foot disorder is being remanded due to the need for additional records and further development.

The Veteran's claim for an effective date earlier than March 24, 2004, for the award of special monthly compensation (SMC) for loss of use of both feet is denied as there is no legal basis to grant such a request due to the finality of the June 2005 rating decision.

The VA determined that the Veteran's residuals from his exploratory laparotomy and colonoscopy were not caused by negligence or fault on the part of VA, and thus denied compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151.

The case is being remanded for further development to determine the current severity of the Veteran's service-connected residuals of a fracture of the third metatarsal and whether separate ratings should be assigned for his Morton's neuroma.

The Veteran seeks service connection for a skin disability affecting his bilateral feet. The Board has determined that additional development is needed, including obtaining medical records and scheduling the Veteran for an examination to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed condition.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including obtaining VA records related to informed consent obtained in conjunction with a transesophageal echocardiogram performed on April 26, 2001. The claim will be reconsidered after these actions.

The Board granted increased ratings for the Veteran's service-connected shell fragment wound disabilities, assigning a 20% rating each for the left arm and back.,Both conditions were rated based on muscle group involvement rather than exposure to specific hazards like burn pits or Agent Orange.

The Board found no evidence of a left foot disorder in service and insufficient medical evidence linking the current condition to military service. The Veteran's claim for service connection was denied.

The Veteran's service-connected gunshot wound residuals to the left and right buttocks are currently rated at 20 percent each, with no evidence of additional disability warranting a higher rating.

The Board found that the appellant's deceased husband did not have qualifying service and therefore is not considered a veteran for VA benefits purposes.

The Veteran's non-service-connected pension benefits were retroactively and prospectively reduced, leading to an overpayment of $36,520. The RO denied a waiver of this overpayment in July 2000, and the Veteran has appealed both the reduction and the denial of the waiver.

The Board found that the appellant's current low back disability is not related to his active service and denied his claim.

The Veteran's acquired psychiatric disability, including schizoaffective disorder with panic disorder, is found to be related to his military service and the claim for service connection is granted.

The Board found that the Veteran's right eye disorder is not related to his service and denied his claim.

The Veteran's claim for an increased evaluation for his service-connected left foot disability was denied. The Board found that the evidence did not support a rating in excess of 30 percent, but granted a separate 10 percent rating for degenerative arthritis.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's fatal primitive neuroectodermal brain tumor, which is a type of soft-tissue sarcoma, was caused by herbicide exposure during service. As such, the cause of death is deemed to be service-connected.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including obtaining his VA vocational rehabilitation folder and scheduling him for a right knee examination.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for athlete's foot, keratosis pilaris, and arthralgia are being remanded due to the need for additional medical examination.

The Veteran's myelodysplastic syndrome with cytogenetics (MDS) is granted as service connected due to presumed exposure to herbicides during his Vietnam service.

The Veteran's claim for nonservice-connected VA burial benefits was denied as the appellant did not provide the required proof of death within the one-year deadline.