Other conditions decisions — 2013

The Veteran seeks recognition of his son, R.A.H., as a 'child' based on permanent incapacity for self-support prior to attaining the age of 18 years due to Crohn's disease. The Board has ordered additional development including obtaining medical records and educational transcripts.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the Veteran's competency for VA disability benefits purposes. The RO must ensure all relevant records are obtained, including VA treatment records from 2002 onwards and a psychiatric examination is conducted.

The Board found that the Veteran received his disability payments from August 2006 to January 2008, despite his allegations.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development of his claims, including obtaining service treatment records and VA examinations to address the nature and etiology of his skin disorder, nasal disorder, sleep disorder, and PTSD.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's emergency treatment at Shands Medical Center did not meet the criteria for payment under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1725, as there was no clear medical emergency and delay would not have been hazardous to his life or health.

The Veteran requested an effective date prior to August 27, 2008, for the payment of additional compensation based on his spouse's dependency. The Veteran and his representative withdrew their appeal in February 2013.

The Board has dismissed the Veteran's appeals of his claims for service connection for frostbite residuals and thrombocytopenia as he withdrew from appeal these issues. The claim for skin rash of the lower extremities remains pending but is denied.

The Board denied the appellant's request for an extension of her DEA benefits beyond May 7, 2010, finding that there was no factual basis to extend the delimiting date due to her university studies not being interrupted.

The claim is denied because the decedent died before the enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, making him ineligible for a one-time payment from the FEVC fund.

The Board has determined that the appellant does not have qualifying service and therefore is not eligible for a one-time payment from the FVEC.

The Veteran's claim for waiver of recovery of the overpayment of improved pension benefits in the amount of $35,740.50 was denied because it was not filed within the required 180-day period following notification of the indebtedness.

The Veteran's appeal was dismissed due to the death of the appellant, and no jurisdiction remains for further action.

The Veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses incurred at Berrien County Hospital on June 16, 2010 was granted as the emergency services were provided in a hospital emergency department and the condition met the criteria for an emergency treatment.

The Veteran's appeal is denied as he is not legally entitled to the benefits in question due to a previous award of Chapter 30 benefits for school enrollment during the same time period from August 22, 2007, to August 7, 2008.

The appellant does not have recognized active military service for the purpose of obtaining a one-time payment from the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund, and therefore is denied legal entitlement to such benefits.

The Veteran's service-connected residuals of a shell fragment wound of the left buttock with degenerative joint disease of the left hip are currently rated at 20 percent, which is the maximum schedular rating available under Diagnostic Code 5317. The claim for an increased rating has been granted.

The Veteran's initial evaluation for his right foot sesamoid fracture was increased to 10 percent effective October 19, 2005. The appeal is remanded due to a hearing issue.

The Veteran's left retropatellar pain syndrome was evaluated as 10 percent disabling prior to December 7, 2006 and as 30 percent disabling from that date to the present. The appeal for higher ratings is denied.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal regarding the ratings for chronic back strain, and there are no further questions of fact or law to consider.

The Board has remanded the case due to the appellant not being afforded a requested videoconference hearing. The case is now pending for scheduling such a hearing.