Other conditions Board decisions

The Veteran's claim for a higher rating for his service-connected right hand disability was denied. The Board found that the evidence did not support an evaluation in excess of 10 percent.

The Board has determined that the appellant's bilateral hallux valgus was aggravated by injury incurred during his active duty service, and therefore grants service connection for this condition.

The Board denied service connection for ulcer disease as secondary to gastritis and did not assign a disability rating for gastritis.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's claimed throat, skin, and gastrointestinal disorders are not service-connected due to a lack of evidence showing their onset during service or being related to his military service.

The Veteran's death was not caused by a service-connected condition, and the Board denied service connection for the cause of death.

The Veteran's service-connected bilateral dermatophytosis of the feet and occasional candidiasis in the corner of the mouth are currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling. The Board finds that these conditions do not warrant a higher rating based on current evidence.

The Board found that the Veteran's overpayment was valid based on evidence showing a fraud scheme where Veterans were enrolled for VA benefits without attending classes.

The Veteran's right eye disability, manifested by itching and dryness with a component of blepharitis prior to September 29, 2009, was granted a compensable rating. From September 29, 2009, the disability is rated at 10 percent based on mild conjunctivitis with a component of blepharitis.

The Board found that the Veteran's current lung disability was not incurred in or aggravated by active service and denied his claim for service connection.

The Board found that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of a circulatory disorder and thus, service connection for this condition is denied.

The Board denied the appellant's claims for service connection for cancer of the left parotid gland and for the cause of her husband's death. The evidence did not support a finding that the Veteran's fatal cancer was related to his period of service, including his exposure to radiation in service.

The Veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 is being remanded due to the need to obtain a copy of his signature informed consent for the dental procedures performed on January 23, 2003.

The Board has granted an effective date of June 15, 1994 for death pension benefits and entitlement to nonservice connected pension for purposes of accrued benefits.

The Board found that the Veteran had dermatological symptoms in service, but there is no evidence of a chronic condition since then. The current dermatological disorder is not shown to be related to service or any service-connected disability.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for basal cell carcinoma on the right side of his face was denied as there is no competent evidence showing he has this condition or any residuals thereof.

The appellant is not eligible for restoration of DIC benefits as a remarried widow of a veteran due to her age at the time of remarriage.

The Board found that the Veteran's right elbow disability, characterized by limited extension and flexion, does not warrant a rating in excess of the current 10 percent assigned under DCs 5206 and 5207.

The Board found that the Veteran's deviated nasal septum is not manifested by a 50 percent obstruction on both sides or by complete obstruction on one side, and thus does not meet the criteria for an initial compensable disability rating.

The Board dismissed the appeal because the appellant did not file a timely substantive appeal of the October 2002 decision denying her claim for nonservice-connected death pension benefits. The criteria for entitlement to nonservice-connected death pension benefits have not been met due to her income exceeding the established limit.

The Veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses incurred at Casa Grande Medical Center on October 24, 2005 was denied. The VAMC found that the VA was feasibly available and this was non-emergent. The Board has decided to remand the case due to a lack of records regarding contact with the Tucson VAMC.