Other conditions Board decisions

The Board denied the veteran's claim of service connection for residuals of a blocked windpipe due to lack of evidence of current disability.

The veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for service connection of a schizoaffective disorder was denied as his original claim was received more than one year after his separation from active duty.

The VA has determined that the veteran's service-connected dermatophytosis of the feet does not meet the criteria for a compensable rating under any applicable diagnostic code.

The Board has determined that the veteran's current right leg disability is not related to his service or a service-connected condition, and thus denied the claim of entitlement to service connection.

The Board has determined that the veteran's right foot injury with a cheilectomy of the great toe does not warrant an initial rating higher than 20 percent.

The veteran's service-connected disabilities require a higher level of care, necessitating special monthly compensation based on the need for aid and attendance. The veteran is completely dependent on others for his total care, including daily bowel care, transfers, catheterization changes, food preparation, and bathing.

The veteran's cause of death was not service-connected as the Board found no evidence linking his death to his military service or any pre-existing condition.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for basic eligibility for VA death benefits due to lack of entitlement under the law.

The Board found that the appellant did not have recognized active service and therefore does not meet basic legal requirements for eligibility for VA benefits.

The Board found that the appellant is not entitled to VA death benefits as he was over the age of 18 and capable of earning a salary at the time of his father's death.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for service connection of schizoaffective disorder, finding that no new and material evidence had been submitted to reopen his previously denied claims.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for a fatigue disorder and an increased evaluation for his coronary artery disease. The evidence did not support the presence of a current fatigue disorder or establish a relationship to service or a service-connected disability.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for his service-connected lumbosacral and cervical spine disabilities, finding that the evidence did not meet the criteria for a higher rating under the applicable VA rating criteria.

The Board found that the veteran's claimed head and neck injuries did not manifest during service or within a year of separation, and there is no evidence linking current disabilities to military service. The VA examiner opined that the veteran's current conditions are less likely related to his military service.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for a chronic skin disorder and a chronic acquired psychiatric disorder, as there is no competent evidence linking these conditions to his military service.

The veteran's appeal for an earlier effective date for a TDIU was dismissed due to his death.

The Board has granted a 60 percent rating for the veteran's service-connected spinal fusion residuals effective from March 7, 2006. The earlier effective date of September 10, 2002, for TDIU remains unchanged.

The Board denied a compensable rating for residuals of left inguinal herniorrhaphy and service connection for left orchiectomy. The decision is not considered to be clearly and unmistakably erroneous.

The veteran has a qualifying additional disability caused by VA surgical treatment in September 1999, which was not reasonably foreseeable. The veteran is granted compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for the sensory loss due to nerve damage extending from the right groin to the anterior thigh.

The Board found no asbestos-related lung condition in service and the only medical opinion to address the etiology of current lung disability weighs against the claim. For gastrointestinal disability, there was no indication of such a condition in service.