Other conditions Board decisions

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings for his service-connected gastritis and duodenitis, left posterior thigh gunshot wound, and left anterior thigh gunshot wound were denied. The Veteran was not granted any increased ratings.

The Board found no compensable disabling impairment associated with the service-connected right erector spinae muscle injury and denied the claim for a compensable evaluation.

The Veteran's unauthorized medical expenses incurred at Fawcett Memorial Hospital on March 15, 2008 and from March 16 to March 19, 2008 are denied as he does not have an adjudicated service-connected disability.

The Board has determined that the Veteran does not have a currently diagnosed left lung disability and finds no evidence to support service connection for such. The right testicle vasectomy residuals are considered pending as there is insufficient information provided.

The Board found that the Veteran's left inguinal hernia is recurrent, small, and reducible. The disability does not meet the criteria for a higher rating under Diagnostic Code 7338.

The Veteran's request for waiver of recovery of overpayment of compensation benefits was denied by the RO. The case is now REMANDED to issue a statement of the case and allow the Veteran to file a substantive appeal.

The Board has determined that there is no evidence of dental trauma in service or a current disability related to service, thus denying the Veteran's claim for service connection.

The Veteran's chronic gastrointestinal disability is found to be at least as likely as not caused by his service-connected back disabilities and the medications used for those conditions.

The Board denied reopening the Veteran's claims for service connection for paranoid delusional disorder and obsessive compulsive neurosis/emotional instability reaction, finding that new and material evidence had not been received.

The Veteran's skin disability, specifically dermatophytosis of the hands and feet, is being remanded for further evaluation due to unclear extent of affected areas.

The Veteran's lung disease claim is being remanded for a new VA examination to determine the etiology of his lung disability and whether it is related to service, specifically asbestos exposure.

The Veteran's skin rash was not incurred in service and there is no current diagnosis. The Board denied the claim for a skin rash due to lack of evidence linking the condition to service.

The Veteran's service as a member of the New Philippine Scouts in the Regular Army from June 1946 to April 1949 is not considered eligible for nonservice-connected pension benefits due to lack of basic eligibility.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded for additional development, including obtaining medical records and scheduling a VA examination to assess the severity of his joint pain condition.

The Veteran's claim for a compensable rating for his right ring finger disability was granted, with the effective date being February 6, 2007.

The Veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses incurred during his hospitalization at the Maine Medical Center from July 8, 2005 to July 20, 2005 is being remanded due to several procedural and factual issues.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for passing out, a blood infection, and a disability manifested by passing blood in the urine. The claims of service connection for sinusitis and coronary artery and aortic valvular disease have also been denied as new and material evidence was not received to reopen these previously denied claims.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for service connection for the cause of her husband's death, finding that squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck was not related to his military service or exposure to Agent Orange.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including obtaining a rationale for the VA health care provider's opinion regarding his dementia and its relationship to service-connected brain disease due to trauma.

The Veteran's disability benefits are not to be apportioned to the Appellant on behalf of his child due to the Veteran reasonably discharging his responsibility for the support of the child through support payments and the Veteran having expenses exceeding his income, resulting in undue hardship.