Other conditions Board decisions

The Board found the debt in the amount of $1,539.47 valid and denied waiver of this overpayment due to lack of evidence supporting the Veteran's claims regarding enrollment status.

The Board found that the Veteran's current respiratory and eye disorders were not incurred in or aggravated by service, and denied his claims for service connection.

The Veteran's claim is being remanded due to the need for additional development, including a VA examination.

The Board finds that the Veteran's low back disorder is not related to his active military service, and therefore, denies the claim of entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder.

The Board denied an earlier effective date for the award of additional disability compensation for a dependent spouse, finding that January 21, 2005 is the correct effective date based on when notice was received of the dependant's existence.

The Board has granted the Veteran's claim for service connection for a digestive disorder, finding that new and material evidence has been received to reopen his previous denied claim. The right knee disorder claim is still pending.

The Board found that the appellant's discharge from service was under dishonorable conditions due to willful and persistent misconduct, which barred him from VA benefits. The appeal is denied.

The appellant disagrees with the amount of an apportionment of the Veteran's VA compensation benefits and has appealed to the Board. The case is being remanded for further review due to additional financial evidence received since the issuance of the statement of the case.

The Board has decided to remand the case for additional development, including obtaining relevant records pertaining to the Veteran's spouse's death and its impact on her disability compensation benefits.

The Veteran claims compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for perforated bowel and acute pancreatitis following a VA colonoscopy in February 2007. The case is remanded to obtain additional medical records, including those from the VA provided colonoscopy and emergency department visits.

The Veteran's claim for nonservice-connected pension benefits is being remanded due to the need for a VA examination to assess his disabilities and their impact on his ability to secure and maintain employment.

The Board found that the Veteran's prostate disorder is not related to his active military service, including as secondary to herbicide exposure. The gastrointestinal disorder claim was addressed separately.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for additional development and adjudication, including obtaining an autopsy report related to the Veteran's death.

The Veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses incurred at South Mississippi County Regional Medical Center and from Dr. Husted on May 31, 2007 is denied because the claims were not filed within 90 days after termination of care.

The Veteran's son is not entitled to accrued benefits in excess of $747.54 due to the appellant failing to provide evidence that he bore any additional expenses for his mother's last sickness or burial.

The Board has ordered the VAMC to obtain VA medical treatment records and any statements from Dr. John Craig regarding the appellant's referral to Baptist Memorial Hospital for services not available at the VAMC. The VAMC will then adjudicate the claim under all applicable reimbursement regulations, including 38 U.S.C.A. § 1703.

The Board has determined that the effective date for a 10 percent rating for a right calf gunshot wound scar is November 19, 2002.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for various respiratory and musculoskeletal conditions, including those related to congenital pectus excavatum, are being remanded due to inadequate examination reports in the prior decision.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for reimbursement of private medical expenses incurred at Hancock Medical Center on November 6th and 7th, 2007. The reasons were that prior authorization was not obtained, VA facilities were not feasibly available, and the treatment did not meet all criteria under 38 U.S.C.A. 1725.