Other conditions Board decisions

The Board denied a request for an earlier effective date of August 1, 1994 for the grant of Total Disability Rating due to Individual Unemployability (TDIU). The Veteran's claim was based on his application to correct his military records and not service connection.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded to the RO for a VA dermatological examination and further development of his Social Security Administration (SSA) records.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded due to the need for additional examination and consideration of both a staged rating based on changes in severity since service connection was granted, as well as extra-schedular evaluation based on symptoms reported by the Veteran and alleged interference with employment.

The Board has determined that the appellant does not have standing to be recognized as a claimant for VA burial benefits because she is not using her own funds or acting on behalf of the Veteran's estate. The appeal is denied.

The Board has granted compensation benefits for the Veteran's L-1 compression fracture, but denied an increased rating. The effective date remains pending as it is not specified in the decision.

The Veteran's claim for an initial compensable disability rating for staphylococcus infection of the skin was denied as there is no evidence of any infections in her medical records, and she does not meet the criteria for a compensable rating under VA regulations.

The Board found that the Veteran's nasopharynx cancer is not related to service or exposure to herbicides, and thus denied his claim for service connection.

The Board found that the appellant's service discharge was a bad conduct discharge due to court-martial, which constitutes a bar to VA benefits.

The Board denied the appellant's request to reopen his claim that his discharge was a bar to VA benefits, finding no new and material evidence had been submitted.

The Veteran's urethral stricture is currently rated at 30 percent, the highest available rating for obstructed voiding. The evidence does not support a higher disability evaluation as he does not have symptoms warranting absorbent materials to change more than twice daily.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his palpitations, including whether they are related to service-connected hypertension. The case will be readjudicated after this additional development.

The Board has remanded the case for further development due to insufficient reasons and bases in the September 2006 decision, including a need for a more contemporaneous VA examination.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for a hearing before the Board of Veterans' Appeals.

The Veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses incurred on June 26, 2006 was denied as a VA facility was feasibly available to treat his flank pain.

The Veteran seeks compensation under the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. � 1151 for T-12 anterior spinal infarction with resultant bilateral lower extremity paralysis, which he contends is a result of an aortic bifemoral bypass performed at the Iowa City VA Medical Center on October 13, 2006. The case has been remanded to obtain additional treatment records and to provide a medical opinion regarding whether the Veteran's current condition was caused by or worsened as the result of VA medical care.

The veteran withdrew his appeal, leaving no pending claims for the Board to consider.

The Board has decided to remand the case for additional development, including scheduling a VA examination and obtaining new evidence.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for status as a veteran for VA benefits due to a lack of evidence verifying her military service, which is required by law.

The Board found that the appellant did not have recognized service in the U.S. Armed Forces and therefore does not meet the criteria for basic eligibility for VA benefits.

The Veteran's claim for an evaluation in excess of 60 percent for his service-connected status post gastrectomy with perforated duodenal ulcer was denied. The condition is manifested by abdominal pain, epigastric tenderness, daily diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and reflux, delayed gastric emptying, weight loss, malnutrition and weakness.