Wrist & hand Board decisions

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an extension of her period of eligibility for receiving educational assistance benefits under Chapter 30, Title 38, United States Code (Montgomery GI Bill) beyond September 24, 2004 due to a lack of medical evidence showing that she was prevented from initiating or completing a program of education during the delimiting period.

The veteran's claim for an earlier effective date of a 10% rating for residuals of right thumb fracture was denied as the increase in severity within one year prior to May 30, 2003 is not factually ascertainable.

The veteran's claim for earlier effective date was denied as the proper effective date is the date of receipt of his claim, which was August 19, 2002.

The Board found that the veteran's current left wrist disorder was not incurred or aggravated in active service and may not be presumed to have incurred therein.

The veteran is seeking a permanent and total disability rating for pension purposes due to multiple non-service connected disabilities that prevent him from securing or following substantially gainful employment. The case is being remanded for further examination and evaluation of his disabilities.

The veteran's left wrist fracture residuals are currently rated as noncompensable, and his right shoulder surgery residuals are rated at 10 percent. The Board finds that neither condition warrants a higher rating.,The veteran seeks an increased rating for his right shoulder surgery residuals, but the evidence does not support such a finding.

The Board has ordered additional development to determine the etiology of the veteran's claimed disabilities, including whether they are related to service or an undiagnosed illness.

The veteran has withdrawn his appeal regarding the ratings for his broken nose and wrist injuries, leaving no issues remaining before the Board.

The Board has determined that additional development is needed to address the merits of the veteran's claims, including obtaining an opinion from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology regarding the nature and cause of his GCTs.

The veteran's service-connected disabilities do not meet the basic eligibility requirements for a certificate of eligibility for specially adapted housing or a certificate of eligibility for a special home adaptation grant.

The Board has determined that there is no current left wrist impairment to warrant a compensable rating, as the symptoms are attributed to a nonservice-connected post-service injury and resulting surgery.

The Board has determined that the veteran's service-connected disabilities do not prevent him from securing and following a substantially gainful occupation, thus denying his claim for total disability rating based on individual unemployability.

The Board found that the veteran's death was not caused by any service-connected disability and denied the claim for service connection for the cause of the veteran's death.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection of a right wrist condition and an increased evaluation for his left wrist sprain, post traumatic left wrist arthritis and status post left carpal tunnel release. The examiner found no nexus between the in-service injury and current symptoms.

The Board granted service connection for PTSD and denied service connection for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. The rating for the right wrist disability was upheld at 40 percent.

The veteran's tinea versicolor and pseudofolliculitis barbae were granted a 30% rating effective November 21, 2005. The left carpal tunnel syndrome claim is considered 'unknown' as it was not addressed in the decision.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for a VA examination to assess the current severity of her service-connected bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome.

The Board has determined that the veteran's service-connected residuals of fractures of the back, dorsal and lumbar spine T1, T12, L1, and L2, to include arthritis, warrants a rating of 40 percent under Diagnostic Code 5292. The current 20 percent evaluation is deemed inadequate as it does not reflect the severity of his disability.