Other conditions Board decisions

The Board found that the veteran's gastrointestinal disability, including Crohn's disease and/or ulcerative colitis, was not incurred or aggravated during his active service. The preponderance of evidence does not support a finding of service connection.

The veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 is being remanded due to the need to obtain missing VA X-rays and provide an opinion on whether his current lung disability is related to the pneumonia he received at VA facilities in January and February 1999.

The Board previously denied service connection for the veteran's bilateral eye condition, but a remand is required due to inadequate medical opinions and further development of the case is needed.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claimed conditions of loss of sense of smell and taste are not due to any event or incident of his active service.

The Board found that the veteran's bilateral interstitial fibrosis is not shown to have been present in service or at any time thereafter, and thus denied his claim for service connection.

The Board has remanded the case to the RO for an appropriate VA medical examination and consideration of extraschedular TDIU on a case-by-case basis.

The Board found that the veteran did not engage in combat and there is no credible supporting evidence of a personal assault during service. Therefore, post-traumatic stress disorder was not incurred in service.

The Board finds that the veteran did not submit any written communication indicating entitlement to recognition of loss of use of the left lower extremity, special monthly compensation based on loss of use of a foot, TDIU, and/or DEA benefits prior to June 3, 1999. Therefore, the effective dates currently in effect are determined to be correct.

The veteran's service-connected left eye corneal abrasion is manifested by pain resulting in no more than slight episodic incapacity, but with no compensable impairment of visual acuity and warrants a disability evaluation of 10 percent.

The veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses incurred at a non-VA facility on April 8, 2005 was denied because the treatment did not meet the criteria for emergency services under VA regulations.

The Board found that the veteran's dizziness, claimed as secondary to a head injury during service, was not incurred or caused by active military service and denied his claim for service connection.

The Board has granted an increased evaluation of 30 percent for the veteran's right rotator cuff tear and related surgeries, effective from the date of the August 2005 rating decision.

The Board has remanded the case due to the veteran's incarceration and requests for a hearing. The VA must ensure that proper VCAA notice is provided, including information on how disability ratings and effective dates are determined.

The Board has remanded the veteran's claims of service connection for dysentery, malaria, malnutrition, and a skin disease of the legs due to new evidence submitted by the veteran.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has not been submitted to reopen the veteran's previously denied claim for service connection for a stomach ulcer, resulting in a denial of the reopening of the claim.

The Board denied an increased evaluation for degenerative changes of the thoracic spine, finding that the evidence did not support a rating higher than 20 percent from September 26, 2003.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for basic eligibility to receive VA benefits due to a lack of qualifying service in active military, naval, or air service.

The Board has determined that the appellant is the veteran's surviving spouse for VA benefits purposes, based on their common-law marriage prior to October 10, 1991.

The Board found that the veteran's back pain did not manifest during service and is not related to his military service. The claim for service connection was denied.

The Board has remanded the case due to unclear information about the veteran's exposure to ionizing radiation during service, and a dose estimate is needed. The appellant must be informed of her rights under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act.