Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has determined that the appellant is not eligible for restoration of nonservice connected death pension as a matter of law due to her remarriage and subsequent termination after November 1, 1990. The appeal is denied.

The Board has determined that the November 30, 1955 VA rating decision denying service connection for a duodenal ulcer was clearly and unmistakably erroneous due to an error in determining that the presumption of aggravation had been rebutted. As a result, the veteran's claim is granted.

The VA determined that the veteran's current bilateral visual field impairment was not caused by VA's failure to diagnose a cerebral vascular accident on July 31, 2003. The Board found that the evidence did not support the claim.

The Board has determined that the veteran's cause of death was not caused by his exposure to herbicides in Vietnam, and therefore denied the claim for service connection for the cause of the veteran's death.

The Board has dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's death.

The Board previously found the veteran not competent for VA purposes based on a September 2002 VA psychiatric examination. The Court of Appeals for Veteran's Claims (Court) has ordered a remand to provide the veteran with a thorough and contemporaneous VA examination, take into account prior medical treatment records, and notify him about what type of evidence would substantiate his claim.

The Board has remanded the case for further development and consideration of the veteran's claims, including a request for an opinion on whether his right lung mass is related to herbicide exposure in service.

The Board denied a rating higher than the assigned 10 percent for service-connected residuals of pulmonary cancer, with removal of right upper lobe lung nodule from November 1, 2002 to July 1, 2005.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for her service-connected chondromalacia of the left and right knees, finding that there was no evidence showing that her knee conditions warranted a rating higher than 10 percent.

The Board has granted separate compensable ratings of 10 percent for limitation of motion of the right hand and 30 percent for neurological disability of the right hand due to ulnar nerve impairment.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded to the RO for additional development of his claim, including obtaining records from an October 2006 endoscopy at the Manchester VA Medical Center.

The Board denied service connection for skin rash and diverticulosis, finding no medical evidence of a relationship between the veteran's current conditions and his military service.

The Board has denied an increased rating for the veteran's service-connected right little toe fracture, with fusion proximal and middle, currently evaluated as 30 percent disabling.

The Board has determined that the veteran's mandibular prognathism existed prior to service and was not aggravated by active service, thus denying her claim for service connection for residuals of orthognathic surgery.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for cancer of the oropharynx, finding that there was no evidence linking his condition to service, including exposure to Agent Orange.

The Board has determined that the veteran sustained shrapnel wounds to his back and left arm during service, which resulted in current residual scarring. The Board finds these residuals are directly related to service.

The veteran withdrew his appeal for an evaluation in excess of 40 percent for service-connected varicose veins of the right leg.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for nose bleeds and septal dysplasia, finding no evidence linking these conditions to his military service or any applicable presumptive period.

The Board has ordered the case to be remanded due to incomplete records and inadequate notice.

The Board found that the appellant is not entitled to recognition as the veteran's surviving spouse for VA purposes due to a separation from the veteran in 1975, which was not due to fault of the appellant.