Other conditions Board decisions

The veteran's claims for service connection for anal bleeding and a left foot disorder were denied in April 2002. New evidence received since then supports the diagnosis of anal bleeding but does not establish that it is related to service, while the service-connected small bunion on the left foot was confirmed.,The veteran's claim for increased rating for his right foot condition remains pending.

The veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses incurred on June 19, 2006 at Sacred Heart Medical Center was denied because the treatment did not meet the criteria for a medical emergency and VA facilities were feasibly available.

The Board found that the veteran's cause of death, acute intracerebral hemorrhage, was not related to his service-connected disabilities or any other injury or disease associated with service. The Board denied the claim for service connection for the cause of the veteran's death.

The Board has determined that the overpayment of disability compensation benefits at issue may have been improperly created due to VA administrative error. The veteran is being given an opportunity to respond and for further action.

The VA denied an increased evaluation for orchialgia, left post operative varicocelectomy, currently rated at 20 percent.

The Board found no evidence of a current disability and denied the veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral hand pain, including popping sensation in knuckles.

The Board has determined that the veteran's hip disability warrants a rating of 50 percent, based on moderate limitations in motion and weakness.

The veteran's appeal for a higher rating for his right tibia fracture has been dismissed as the appellant withdrew their appeal.

The Board found that the veteran's bilateral eye disability was not incurred in or aggravated by active service and denied his claim.

The Board found that there is no evidence of tendonitis or sacroilitis with enthesopathy HLA and B27 in service, nor any link to service. The veteran's current conditions are not related to her military service.

The veteran's claim for service connection for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, claimed as due to exposure to herbicides, has been remanded for further development. The appeal is reopened based on new evidence.

The Board has remanded the case for further notification and readjudication due to procedural issues, including providing proper VCAA notice regarding new and material evidence.

The veteran's claims for increased evaluations of his liver enzymes, traumatic mydriasis of the right eye, and bilateral defective hearing were denied. The VA found no evidence of impairment or disability associated with these conditions.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for a rating in excess of 60 percent for Crohn's disease and for TDIU, finding that the evidence did not support an increased disability rating or individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for IgM nephropathy with focal sclerosing glomerulonephritis, finding that there was no evidence linking his current kidney disability to his military service.

The veteran's appeal is remanded for further development, including a comprehensive VA examination to assess the severity of his service-connected dyspepsia.

The veteran's claims for service connection for ringworm fungus and a skin rash, both related to exposure to herbicides, are being remanded due to the need for additional development of VA treatment records.

The Board found that the veteran's menstrual disorder, including as due to an undiagnosed illness, is not related to her service and denied the claim.

The veteran's son, C., was not permanently incapable of self-support due to ADHD prior to his 18th birthday. The Board found that the evidence did not show he was permanently incapable of self-support before age 18.

The Board found that the veteran's stomach ulcers were not incurred in or aggravated by service and may not be presumed to have been incurred in service. The VA examiner's opinion was more probative than Dr. E.R.D.'s, who provided inconsistent conclusions with the evidence.