Other conditions Board decisions

The Board found no new and material evidence to reopen the claim for service connection for an eye disability, including ocular histoplasmosis and geographic serpiginous choroiditis.

The Board found that the veteran's fatal brain cancer was not incurred in or aggravated by his military service, including exposure to chemicals during his service in the Gulf War. The claim for service connection for the cause of death is denied.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for further development, including scheduling a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge.

The Board has determined that the veteran's legally adopted children, R.T. and A.T., meet the criteria to be recognized as his adopted children for VA purposes.

The Board has determined that the veteran's service-connected residuals of a coccyx fracture warrant a 10 percent disability rating, as this condition manifests as pain and tenderness in the area of the coccyx without clinical indication of other symptomatology.

The veteran claims service connection for scleroderma, which he alleges is secondary to chemical exposure during his military service. The case has been remanded due to the need for additional development regarding the specific chemicals used and potential exposure.

The veteran's application for Service Disabled Veterans' Insurance (RH) was denied because his cancer of the rectum, which he successfully treated in 2004, disqualifies him from being considered 'in good health,' as defined by VA criteria. His mortality ratio exceeds the 300 percent cap allowed for underwriting an insurance policy.

The Board dismissed the appeal due to the death of the appellant, and thus has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this claim.

The Board has determined that the veteran's service-connected back strain with degenerative joint disease does not warrant a higher disability rating, as his symptoms do not meet or approximate the criteria for a higher evaluation under the applicable VA rating criteria.

The veteran's claim for service connection for his AVM of the spinal cord is being remanded due to a need for further development, including obtaining medical records and scheduling an examination. The Board will determine if there is a link between the veteran's current back disability and his in-service injury during combat.

The veteran's application for enrollment in the VA healthcare system was denied as he is not eligible due to his placement in Priority Group 8 and his application being received after January 17, 2003.

The Board has determined that the veteran sustained a fracture of the right humerus during VA hospitalization in 1988, which resulted in disability. The other claimed injuries were not related to the VA treatment and are considered new and material.

The Board has determined that additional development is needed to determine if the veteran's menstrual irregularity and dysplasia are related to military service, including obtaining medical records and scheduling a VA examination.

The Board has ordered a remand to address the left elbow disability and arthralgias of multiple joints claims due to incomplete development and lack of clarity in the decision.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including an examination and consideration of a separate rating for injury to muscle groups I through IV. The appeal will be returned to the Board after this is done.

The Board denied an effective date prior to April 20, 2000 for the grant of service connection for ALS due to a lack of evidence between the August 1988 Board decision and the April 20, 2000 claim.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for actinic keratosis of the nose with squamous cell carcinoma of the forehead and skin rash of bilateral lower extremities, finding that there was no direct evidence linking these conditions to his military service or exposure to herbicides.

The Board affirmed the RO's decision to grant an apportionment of the veteran's VA compensation benefits in the amount of $300 per month on behalf of his child, finding that it was proper given the evidence showing the veteran did not discharge his responsibility for support and that the apportionment would not cause undue hardship.

The Board finds that the veteran was not reasonably discharging his responsibility for the three children's support during the time they did not reside with him, thus warranting an apportionment of the veteran's VA compensation benefits on behalf of the appellant and her three minor children.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including a VA examination to determine if the veteran acquired nicotine dependence in service and whether it is more likely than not that this dependence caused his cardiovascular disability.