Other conditions Board decisions

The Board denied the appellant's claims for service connection for a cardiac disorder and for benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for ear infections, finding no evidence of a current disability or causation to military service.

The veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of lead poisoning is being remanded due to the need for a videoconference hearing.

The Board found that the veteran does not have PTSD attributable to an independently verifiable in-service stressor and therefore denied her claim for service connection.

The Board denied service connection for various conditions claimed as a result of exposure to ionizing radiation, finding no evidence linking these conditions to service or the required one-year presumptive period.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development of the record, including obtaining VA outpatient treatment records and providing opinions from a physician regarding his claims.

The Board found no evidence linking the cause of death to service-connected conditions or any incident of service, including exposure to Agent Orange. The cause of death was attributed to an enterocaval fistula due to peptic ulcer disease (Zollinger-Ellison Syndrome) complicated by acute intestinal hemorrhage.

The VA determined that the veteran's systolic click syndrome does not warrant a compensable rating, as it is asymptomatic and does not require medication or manifest by an identifiable lesion.

The Board has granted a 20 percent rating for the veteran's tenosynovitis of the right Achilles tendon, finding that it meets the criteria for marked limitation of motion in the ankle.

The Board denied a rating in excess of 10 percent for paroxysmal atrial tachycardia (PAT) as the evidence did not show more than four episodes per year documented by ECG or Holter monitor.

The veteran claims service connection for bilateral peripheral artery disease, which he contends first manifested during military service. The VA examiner and the treating physician have conflicting opinions on whether the condition is related to his military service. The Board has ordered a new medical opinion to clarify this issue.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded to allow him to schedule a hearing before a Decision Review Officer.

The VA denied the veteran's claim for service connection for rectal cancer, attributing it to a lack of evidence and not finding any link between the condition and his military service or herbicide exposure.

The veteran's increased rating claim for reflex sympathetic dystrophy of the right upper extremity and his bilateral knee disability reopening claim were denied. The low back disability claim was also denied.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for lateral epicondylitis of both elbows, finding that the evidence does not support a rating higher than 10 percent.

The veteran's claim for service connection for right epididymitis was reopened and denied on the merits.,The veteran's request for apportionment of his compensation benefits due to incarceration during a specific period was denied.

The Board found that the appellant received both DIC and DEA benefits from September 19, 1995 through February 1, 1997, resulting in an overpayment of $2859.67, which was properly created.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including obtaining National Guard records and scheduling a VA examination to determine if there is evidence of an in-service superimposed disease or injury on the veteran's nearsightedness.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for Alzheimer's and balance problems, claimed as residuals of radiation exposure. The VA did not find a relationship between these conditions and his military service or alleged radiation exposure.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for postoperative residuals of an excised cystadenoma of the left ovary, stomach disorder, skin disorder, body pain, sinusitis, ear disorder (including otitis), and chest lump. The Board found no current disability manifested by these conditions.

The Board has determined that more development is needed to determine if the appellant had a common law marriage with the veteran prior to their ceremonial marriage, which could potentially allow her to be recognized as his surviving spouse for VA benefits purposes.