Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has denied the appellant's claims for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for a vascular condition secondary to heart catheterization and for a left leg condition, finding that there was no evidence of VA fault or unforeseeable event in providing the treatment.

The veteran's combined disabilities have resulted in a total employment impairment, warranting the maximum schedular ratings for each condition.

The veteran seeks an earlier effective date for the award of a total rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU). The Board finds that the earliest possible effective date is January 21, 1999, as this was when the veteran met the schedular criteria for TDIU. The veteran's service-connected dysthymic disorder was also awarded with an initial 50% rating on this same date.

The veteran's nerve damage as a result of the lipoma removal surgery is not considered to be compensable under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 due to lack of fault on VA's part and reasonable foreseeability of the consequences.

The Board has determined that the veteran's panic disorder with agoraphobia is presumed to have been incurred in service, and thus granted service connection for this condition. The issue of service connection for a disability manifested by dizzy spells remains pending.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claims for service connection for a lower intestinal disorder and an anorectal disorder are remanded due to inadequate development of evidence.

The veteran's claim for a higher evaluation for his service-connected onychomycosis is being remanded due to the need for another hearing before a Veterans Law Judge.

The case is being remanded due to the need for additional development and notification as it pertains to the effective date of DIC benefits and accrued benefits claims.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for recognition as the veteran's surviving spouse due to a legal impediment preventing their marriage from being valid under Puerto Rico law.

The Board denied the appellant's claim of entitlement to service connection for the cause of her husband's death, finding that there was no competent and persuasive evidence linking the veteran's peripheral vascular occlusive disease to his military service or any herbicide exposure.

The Board found that the veteran does not have a currently diagnosed right hand disability and denied his claim for service connection.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim for service connection due to inservice asbestos exposure and finds that there is sufficient evidence to support a finding of service connection.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded to the RO for further development, including a VA field examination and psychiatric evaluation. The case will be returned to the Board after completion of these actions.

The Board denied the appellant's claim to be recognized as the veteran's surviving spouse for VA death benefit purposes, finding that she did not meet the criteria and held herself out publicly as her friend's wife.

The veteran's claim for service connection for pityriasis rosea was denied, but his claim for a chronic fungal infection of the left calf and both feet was granted.

The Board found that the veteran's splenectomy was not caused by VA carelessness, negligence, or fault. The preponderance of evidence supports this conclusion.

The Board has granted service connection for calluses of both feet and assigned a non-compensable evaluation effective August 26, 2003. However, the veteran's appeal is remanded due to outstanding VA medical records and need for further examination.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has not been received to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for actinic keratosis due to exposure to Agent Orange. As a result, the claim remains denied.

The Board has granted a 40 percent disability rating for the residuals of gunshot wounds to muscle group XXI, and denied increased ratings for the other conditions.

The veteran sustained nerve damage as a result of a July 2003 VA thoracotomy, which was a reasonably foreseeable risk. The veteran was not properly informed of the risk of nerve damage prior to the operation and this disclosure was not considered a minor deviation from the informed consent requirement.