Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has determined that the veteran's current bilateral hearing disability is due to noise exposure during active service, and therefore grants service connection for this condition.

The veteran's medical expenses incurred between November 14, 2003 and January 21, 2004 are eligible for reimbursement as the medical emergency ended when VA determined he was stable enough to transfer from a non-VA facility. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding his stability for transfer during the period of November 14-17.

The veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 due to loss of use of the right hand from neck surgery is being remanded for a Travel Board hearing.

The veteran's widow is not entitled to nonservice-connected death pension benefits due to her income exceeding the statutory limits, even after accounting for unreimbursed medical expenses.

The Board found that the veteran's additional disabilities were not proximately due to VA carelessness, negligence, or lack of proper skill in providing medical treatment. The claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 was denied.

The Board finds that there is no credible evidence of in-service asbestos exposure and no competent evidence linking the veteran's current lung disorder to service. Therefore, the claim for service connection for a lung condition due to asbestos exposure is denied.

The Board has granted the veteran's claim to reopen and denied service connection for a genitourinary disorder, including as due to herbicide exposure. The issue of tinnitus evaluation remains pending.

The veteran's basal cell carcinoma and actinic keratosis involving the face were evaluated at a 10 percent rating from January 4, 2000 to February 12, 2001. From February 13, 2001 to August 1, 2002, he was rated as having moderate disfiguring scars of the face warranting a 10 percent evaluation. Since August 2, 2002, his condition has not met criteria for an increased rating.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development due to the need for a medical opinion regarding his ability to work during the period from July 1986 to December 1995.

The Board has determined that the veteran's gout does not warrant an evaluation in excess of 20 percent, as there is no objective evidence of active gouty arthritis.

The Board has remanded the case for a VA opinion to determine if diabetes mellitus significantly contributed to the cause of death and whether in-service exposure to herbicides caused the veteran's death.

The Board has granted service connection for a bilateral foot disorder (pes cavus and Morton's Neuroma) due to repetitive trauma during military service, including marching in combat boots. Service connection was denied for skin cancer.

The Board has determined that the veteran's death was not caused by a service-connected disability, and thus denied the claim for service connection for the cause of the veteran's death.

The VA has determined that the veteran's service-connected left eye disability does not warrant a rating higher than 10 percent.

The veteran's application for enrollment in the VA healthcare system was denied because he does not have a compensable service-connected disability and his income status does not qualify him for special eligibility categories.

The Board found no evidence of a current back disability related to service and denied the veteran's claim for service connection.

The veteran's income exceeds the maximum annual rate for improved pension benefits, as determined by his reported income and unreimbursed medical expenses. Therefore, he is not eligible for nonservice-connected pension.

The veteran's appeal is remanded due to the need for further development and consideration of whether he is entitled to a waiver of overpayment of additional compensation benefits after his son stopped attending college.

The Board has determined that the appellant did not have service as a member of the Philippine Commonwealth Army, including recognized guerrillas, in the service of the United States Armed Forces. Therefore, they are denied basic eligibility for VA benefits.

The Board denied the appellant's request to reopen his claim for VA benefits, finding that no new and material evidence had been presented.