Other conditions Board decisions

The Board found that the appellant's schizoaffective disorder did not start during her period of active duty or ACDUTRA, and thus denied service connection.

The Board found that new and material evidence had not been received to reopen the veteran's claim for service connection for spondylolysis and scoliosis of the lumbar spine. The submitted evidence was considered duplicative or did not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim.

The Board has remanded the case due to a lack of proper VCAA notice and further development is required.

The Board finds that the veteran's death was not caused by his service-connected disabilities, and thus service connection for the cause of death is denied.

The veteran's claims for service connection for a liver disability and skin rash due to Agent Orange exposure were denied. The Board found no evidence linking these conditions to his military service or to herbicide exposure.

The Board has determined that additional development is necessary before the claim can be decided, including providing VCAA notice and obtaining VA treatment records.

The Board has granted a 10 percent disability rating for the veteran's service-connected residuals of a fractured left hand, second metacarpal base.

The Board has denied the veteran's service connection claim for costochondritis, finding no current disability and insufficient evidence to establish a link between the condition and military service.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for loss of use of both lower extremities, automobile and adaptive equipment or adaptive equipment only, and specially adapted housing assistance or a special home adaptation grant due to lack of new and material evidence, failure to meet eligibility criteria, and insufficient nexus between the claimed conditions and service-connected disabilities.

The Board denied the appellant's request to reopen her claim for service connection for the cause of the veteran's death, finding that new and material evidence was not received.

The veteran's claim for service connection for crossed eyes was denied, and the appeal is dismissed due to his death.

The VA determined that the veteran's arthritis of the left hand does not warrant a rating higher than 10 percent, as there is no evidence of unfavorable ankylosis or limitation of motion preventing flexion to within 2 inches (5.1 cms) of the median transverse fold of the palm.

The veteran's application for VA medical care benefits was denied because he is assigned to Priority Group 8 and applied for enrollment after January 17, 2003.

The veteran's death was not due to a service-connected disability, and he did not apply for RH insurance within the two-year period after his service connection award. Therefore, the appellant is ineligible for RH insurance.

The Board found that the veteran does not have a restrictive pulmonary function disability and denied his claim for service connection. The increased rating claim for dermatophytosis of the feet and occasional candidiasis in the corner of the mouth is deferred pending completion of the development sought in the remand.

The Board has decided to remand the case for additional development, including obtaining medical records and securing a VA physician's opinion regarding the veteran's hospitalization at St. John's Hospital.

The Board denied the appellant's application to reopen his claim of legal entitlement to VA benefits, finding that new and material evidence had not been submitted. The decision also noted that the appellant was not legally entitled to VA benefits as he assumed a deceased veteran's identity for purposes of obtaining benefits.

The veteran's appeal has been dismissed due to his death, and the claim is moot.

The veteran's appeal is remanded to the RO for additional development, including obtaining VA treatment records and scheduling a new examination. The claim will be readjudicated after these actions.

The Board has determined that the veteran did not have a willful intent to seek an unfair advantage, thus denying the finding of bad faith. The RO's decision is now reviewed for whether recovery of the loan guaranty indebtedness would be against equity and good conscience.