Other conditions Board decisions

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities do not meet the criteria for an increased rate of special monthly compensation.

The Board has remanded the case due to a need for additional development and clarification of the appellant's claims, including providing specific notice regarding service connection for the cause of death.

The Veteran's service-connected residuals of a left foot injury with traumatic arthritis are rated at 20 percent, and his status post fracture, left femur is also rated at 10 percent. The Board has granted increased ratings for both conditions.

The Veteran's claim for educational assistance benefits under Chapter 30, Title 38, United States Code, for on-the-job training was denied as the training occurred more than one year prior to the date of his application.

The Veteran seeks reimbursement for unauthorized medical expenses incurred at a private facility from June 27-July 5, 2006. The case is being remanded due to insufficient evidence regarding the availability of VA facilities and the Veteran's eligibility for reimbursement.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a left eye disability, finding that it was not granted.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings for right elbow epicondylitis, restless leg syndrome of the right lower extremity, and restless leg syndrome of the left lower extremity were denied. The Board found that the evidence did not support a rating in excess of 10 percent for any of these conditions.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for shin splints, arthritis of the right knee, gastroesophageal reflux disease with a hiatal hernia, and sinusitis. The evidence did not show that any current conditions were incurred or aggravated by active service.

The Board found that the Veteran's left hydrocele and left inguinal hernia were not incurred or aggravated by active duty service. The Veteran's pre-existing conditions did not worsen during service.

The Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for a right hand disability is being remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining private treatment records and scheduling a VA examination.

The Board found that the overpayment of $12,795.17 was properly created and calculated due to VA error in sending a check intended for child F's benefits to the appellant instead of the correct recipient. The appellant repaid the debt in full, making any request for waiver moot.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's residuals of duodenal ulcer do not warrant a rating in excess of 20 percent, as there is no medical evidence showing symptoms severe enough to meet the criteria for a higher rating.

The Board has determined that the Veteran does not have a current polio or post-polio syndrome, and thus service connection for these conditions is denied.

The Veteran's death was not caused by exposure to herbicides, and he did not have a service-connected disability that contributed to his death. The claim for DEA is also denied.

The Veteran's appeal was previously before the Board and remanded for a VA examination to determine the current severity of his service-connected interdigital maceration (athlete's foot). The case is now REMANDED due to lack of compliance with prior instructions.

The Board finds that the Veteran's skin disorder, including a fungal infection with onychomycosis, was not incurred in or aggravated by service. The claim for allergies is also denied.

The VA determined that the veteran's right leg fracture is healed and asymptomatic, with no residual disability. As a result, they found that there are no compensable evaluations for his condition.

The Board found that the Veteran's bilateral foot disorder was not incurred or aggravated by his active service and denied the claim.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for interstitial cystitis, including as secondary to his service-connected kidney stones, is being remanded due to the need for additional development and clarification of the relationship between these conditions.

The Board has denied the attorney's request for a higher contingency fee, finding that the apportioned benefits to children A. and F., who were not in the surviving spouse's custody, should not be included in the calculation of the fees owed to the attorney.