Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has denied the veteran's claim of service connection for a right foot injury, finding that there is no current disability and insufficient medical evidence to support an etiological link between his in-service injury and any present condition.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an effective date prior to July 22, 1953 for the grant of service connection for a duodenal ulcer. The decision found that the October 14, 1953 rating decision was not based on CUE.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for a new VA examination to assess the severity of his service-connected foot disability, which includes dermatophytosis and onychomycosis. The claim will be reconsidered after this additional evaluation.

The Board has decided to remand the case for further development, including obtaining medical opinions and records.

The Board has granted an initial rating of 20 percent for the service-connected status post fractures of the right middle and little fingers, effective from the date of service connection.

The veteran's death was not caused by a service-connected disability, and he did not meet the requirements for educational assistance under Chapter 35. The appeal is denied.

The Board has determined that the veteran's arthritis of the left great toe is not service connected, and his right knee disability does not warrant a rating in excess of 20 percent.

The Board has determined that tendonitis of the veteran's arms was not incurred in or aggravated by active duty and denied her claim for service connection.

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

The Board has determined that the veteran's bilateral sympathectomy with residuals is no more than slightly disabling, and thus does not meet the criteria for a compensable rating.

The veteran's service-connected healed fracture of the left lower fibula with scar is not shown to meet or approximate the criteria for a rating in excess of 10 percent. The Board finds that there is no moderate disability due to residuals of a healed fracture of the left lower fibula.

The Board found that the veteran did not file a timely substantive appeal to the September 1, 2000 decision which denied basic eligibility to receive educational assistance benefits under Chapter 30 or Chapter 34, Title 38, United States Code.

The VA has denied the appellant's claim for Dependents Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits under Chapter 35, Title 38 of the United States Code for Cosmetology courses taken at Gulf State Careers because the school is not approved by the Texas Veterans Commission.

The veteran was found to be entitled to compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 based on additional visual acuity of the right eye caused by a July 2000 VA medical procedure, but his claim for a higher rating is denied.

The Board has determined that the veteran's service-connected thoracic outlet syndrome of the right upper extremity warrants a disability evaluation of 30 percent, but no higher.

The Board found that the veteran's chronic L4-5 disc excision and L4 laminectomy residuals were not incurred as a result of VA surgical treatment, hospital care, or medical treatment. The decision concluded that the veteran's condition was not caused by any fault on the part of the Department in furnishing the surgery.

The case is being remanded to the VA Medical Center for further review of the veteran's claim regarding his eligibility for elective outpatient dental treatment, considering all evidence received since the April 2005 SOC. The AOJ should obtain any additional pertinent VA inpatient or outpatient treatment records dated since June 2005.

The Board has determined that there is no evidence of current disabilities related to cold injuries sustained during service, and thus the veteran's claims for service connection are denied.

The Board found no evidence of a current bilateral foot condition and denied the veteran's claim for service connection.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete records from Womack Army Community Hospital, and further development is required.