Other conditions Board decisions

The veteran is seeking service connection for a cold weather injury to his right great toe. The Board has determined that further development, including a VA examination and clarification of the claim's basis, is needed before a decision can be made.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for service connection for the cause of her husband's death, finding that there was no evidence linking his cancer and liver metastases to his military service or exposure to chemical dioxins.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for his service-connected left and right hallux abducto valgus, postoperative, with nerve deficit, great toe.

The Board has granted service connection for bilateral cataracts but denied service connection for a left hip disorder. The veteran's claims are remanded to obtain additional medical evidence and determine the appropriate disability rating for his cervical spine disorder.

The veteran's spouse, the appellant, is not entitled to apportionment of his VA disability compensation benefits as she is no longer considered a proper claimant due to her divorce from the veteran and lack of legal entitlement.

The Board has determined that the veteran's service-connected fracture of the right mandible does not warrant an increased rating, as there is no significant impairment to his masticatory function or motion.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for VA death pension benefits as a child of the veteran due to her being over 18 years old and married at the time she filed her claim, and did not become permanently incapable of self-support before attaining 18 years of age.

The veteran's claim for an increased disability rating for TMJ disease is being remanded due to the need to obtain missing VA treatment records and dental examination.

The Board found that the veteran was not a fugitive felon and thus, the discontinuance of compensation payments from December [redacted], 2001 until October [redacted], 2005 and the creation of an overpayment were improper.

The Board has determined that the veteran's dysphagia is a result of VA surgery in 1956, and as such, compensation benefits are granted under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151.

The Board has determined that the veteran's respiratory disability, claimed as secondary to asbestos exposure, was not incurred in or aggravated by active service. The evidence does not confirm any asbestos exposure during military service and no competent medical evidence supports a link between the current respiratory disability and service.

The veteran was hospitalized at Methodist Hospital for a heart attack and received unauthorized medical expenses from Duckworth Pathology Group, Inc. and Memphis Radiological.,The veteran also incurred unauthorized medical expenses on March 12, 2005 from Dr. Hammond during his hospitalization.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for service connection for the cause of the veteran's death, claimed as due to radiation exposure. The appeal is now remanded for further development.

The veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of unauthorized inpatient medical treatment provided by Manatee Memorial Hospital during March 3-5, 2005 was denied as the condition was considered stable and transfer to a VA facility could have been safely performed.

The veteran's request for an annual clothing allowance is being remanded to the RO for scheduling a videoconference hearing.

The Board has granted service connection for bilateral patellofemoral syndrome and assigned initial disability ratings of 10 percent each, effective from September 27, 2001.

The Board found that the veteran does not have dermatomyositis attributable to military service, including as due to in-service herbicide exposure.

The Board has remanded the case for scheduling a videoconference hearing at the RO. The appellant's eligibility for CHAMPVA for her husband's wife is under appeal.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have a genitourinary disorder that was incurred in or aggravated by his active service.

The Board found no evidence linking the veteran's urethral stricture to his service, and denied his claim.