Other conditions decisions — 2014

The Veteran's pilonidal cyst requires the use of a pad, warranting an initial rating of 30 percent.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claim for reinstatement of nonservice-connected pension benefits due to his large net worth, which exceeds what is reasonable for his maintenance.

The Board has reopened the Veteran's claim of service connection for mild scoliosis with congenital block vertebra at T4-5 and determined that a thoracic spine disorder was incurred in service. The decision is based on the opinion that the current symptoms are due to aggravation of his pre-existing condition by service-related duties.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for retroactive educational benefits under Chapter 35, as VA regulations do not allow payment prior to April 6, 2009.

The Board found that the Veteran's PVD and right leg amputation were not related to service or his service-connected disabilities, and thus denied the claim for accrued benefits.

The Veteran's spouse is eligible for Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits under Chapter 35, Title 38 of the United States Code prior to August 6, 2010 due to the Veteran having a permanent and total disability.

The Veteran's colon cancer is presumed to have been incurred in service due to exposure to ionizing radiation during his military service at Kwajalein Atoll.

The appellant has withdrawn her appeal concerning educational assistance benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill, Montgomery GI Bill - Selected Reserve, Reserve Educational Assistance Program, Veterans' Educational Assistance Program, and Post-9/11 GI Bill. As a result, the issue is dismissed.

The Board finds that the Veteran's unauthorized medical expenses incurred on December 20, 2010 at Louis Smith Memorial Hospital were covered by VA due to an emergency situation and that no other conditions for reimbursement under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1725 were met.

The Veteran's appeal for a higher rate of education benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill is granted, as he served more than 17 months after September 10, 2001. The decision also allows him to receive Chapter 30 benefits concurrently with his Chapter 33 benefits.

The Board is remanding the case to address both the validity of the overpayment creation and the Veteran's request for waiver of recovery. The underlying issue of whether the overpayment was properly created will be adjudicated first.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has not been received to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for residuals of a left arm injury. The Veteran's previous claims were denied due to lack of nexus between his current disability and in-service injury.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for a current VA examination due to the passage of time since his last evaluation and a private chiropractor's statement challenging the findings.

The Veteran's appeal for TDIU was dismissed due to his death.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including obtaining updated VA treatment records and scheduling a new urology examination to assess the Veteran's current symptoms of urethral stricture. The claim will be reconsidered after these actions.

The Board has granted a waiver of the recovery of overpayment of VA education benefits in the amount of $6,592.19 due to financial hardship.

The Board has determined that the appellant does not have arthritis or residuals of hip replacements that are related to service, and therefore denied both claims.

The Board has granted DIC benefits based on the presumption of service connection for liver cancer, which is presumed to be due to exposure to Agent Orange during service.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for additional development, including obtaining private medical records and a VA medical opinion regarding the Veteran's service connection claim for colon cancer.

The Veteran's right leg disabilities, including rhabdomyolysis, compartment syndrome, and foot drop, are not considered to be a result of VA treatment. The Board finds that the preponderance of evidence does not support a finding that these conditions were caused by VA care or treatment.