Other conditions Board decisions

The veteran's vitiligo is currently rated at 30 percent, which is the maximum rating available under the current VA rating criteria for this condition.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for a rating in excess of 30 percent for perirectal abscess and entitlement to TDIU, finding that his condition did not meet the criteria for higher ratings under applicable VA disability evaluation criteria.

The Board has remanded the case to the RO for further development, including scheduling a vocational rehabilitation assessment and considering whether the veteran had an employment handicap as defined under 38 C.F.R. § 21.51 between February 10, 2001 and September 5, 2003.

The Board has determined that the veteran's service-connected traumatic arthritis of both ankles does not warrant an increased disability rating.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been received to reopen the veteran's previously denied claims for service connection for a skin condition and a left foot condition. The ratings for greater trochanteric bursitis of both hips remain unchanged.

The veteran is seeking compensation under the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for herniated nucleus pulposus at L4-5 with canal stenosis, which he claims was caused by VA medical treatment in October and December 1998. The Board has determined that additional evidence is needed to determine if the proximate cause of his current back disability involved carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, error in judgment or similar instance of fault on the part of the Department.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings and service connection, finding that his current level of disability did not warrant higher ratings or additional service connection.

The veteran's claim for service connection for dermatomyositis, to include as due to exposure to herbicides, is being remanded for further development and consideration.

The Board denied the reopening of a claim for service connection for residuals of a wound and infection of the right leg, finding that no new and material evidence had been submitted to support the claim.

The Board has remanded the case for scheduling a hearing at the earliest available opportunity.

The Board has determined that further development is needed to determine if the veteran's service-connected post traumatic stress disorder renders him unemployable, and thus, eligible for a TDIU.

The Board has determined that additional development is needed for the claims of service connection and increased evaluation for dyspepsia, nerve disorder and tremors, and residuals of a septoplasty. The veteran will be provided with proper VCAA notice concerning these issues.

The Board found no evidence of an in-service dental injury and denied the veteran's claim for service connection.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for recognition as the veteran's surviving spouse, finding that she was not legally married to him at the time of his death and had not attempted to remarry or enter a common-law marriage.

The Board found that the veteran's service-connected residuals of a fracture to the right maxilla do not meet the criteria for a compensable rating under any applicable diagnostic codes. The claim was denied as there is no evidence of loss of substance of the body of the maxilla or mandible, and thus no basis for a higher disability evaluation.

The Board found that the appellant's husband had no qualifying service for VA death pension benefits, leading to a denial of her claim.

The case is being remanded for further review due to new evidence received by the Board, and additional development may be required before a final decision can be made.

The veteran withdrew his appeal regarding the issue of service connection for Grave's disease.

The veteran's claim for continuing VA vocational rehabilitation benefits has been dismissed as there is no justiciable controversy.

The veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of the cost of emergency transportation and medical services received from MTC and UMC is denied as he does not have any service-connected disabilities, his Medicare coverage provided partial payment, and there are no other legal avenues to pursue.