Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has remanded the case to the RO in Manila for a hearing and further development.

The Board has determined that the veteran's right eye blindness is not related to his military service.

The Board found that the overpayment of DIC benefits was properly created due to increased income reported by the appellant. The claim is now remanded for issuance of a Statement of the Case regarding the issue of entitlement to a waiver of recovery of an overpayment of DIC benefits.

The Board has determined that the veteran's service-connected healed fracture of the right zygoma warrants a rating no higher than 10 percent, as his symptoms do not meet or approximate the criteria for a higher evaluation.

The Board denied the appellant's claims for service connection for cause of death, nonservice-connected death pension benefits, and accrued benefits due to lack of evidence linking the veteran's heart condition to his service.,Specifically, there was no medical evidence showing that the congestive heart failure or anemia shown after service had onset in service, or was otherwise caused by a disease or injury of service origin.

The Board found that new and material evidence had been received to reopen the service connection claim for bilateral perforated eardrums, but denied the claim as there is no current objective evidence of a disability.

The veteran was granted increased ratings for various disabilities associated with Reiter's syndrome, including the lumbar and cervical spines, thumbs, fingers, knees, and elbows. The effective dates are not specified.

The Board has confirmed and continued the current 10 percent rating for the veteran's service-connected skin disability, characterized as lichen simplex chronicus versus necrobiosis lipoidica. The condition is controlled by topical medication and does not meet or more nearly approximate the criteria for a higher rating.

The veteran's papillary transitional cell carcinoma was manifested by slight hesitancy and nocturia three to four times a night with no evidence of recurrence, incontinence, renal dysfunction, obstructed voiding or significant urinary tract infections from December 1, 2001 to September 28, 2004. Therefore, the disability rating was not greater than 20 percent during this period.

The Board denied the veteran's claim to reopen his service connection for a prostate disorder, finding that the submitted evidence was not new and material.

The Board has determined that the appellant is not entitled to an increased apportionment of the veteran's disability compensation due to her reported income exceeding her expenses, and the veteran's reported expenses exceeding his income.

The Pension Maintenance Center reduced the appellant's VA death pension benefits effective February 1, 2002 due to her receipt of Civil Service income.

The veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral chondromalacia patella is being remanded due to the need for a VA examination to determine if he has current knee disorders related to his military service.

The Board denied service connection for actinic keratoses and left ear hearing loss, as well as a compensable rating for right ear hearing loss. The veteran's exposure to Agent Orange during his Vietnam service is presumed.

The Board found that the veteran's claimed mood disorder is not service-connected, as there was no evidence linking it to his active military service or any service-connected condition.

The veteran died without any service-connected disabilities and was not discharged for a disability incurred in the line of duty. Therefore, he is ineligible for a burial allowance.

The veteran's claim for service connection for a left inguinal hernia is being remanded due to the need for additional medical records from private providers.

The veteran's appeal for non-service connected disability pension benefits has been dismissed due to his death.

The appellant is not a child of the veteran and therefore, is not entitled to VA benefits on account of his service.

The case is being returned to the RO for a video conference Board hearing in Manila, Philippines. The appellant will be scheduled for this hearing once it is conducted or if she cancels.