Other conditions decisions — 2018

The Board has decided to remand the case due to inadequate VA examinations and a need for further medical opinion regarding the etiology of the claimed Meibomian Gland Dysfunction.

The Veteran's service-connected disuse atrophy, muscle groups XIII and XIV of the right lower extremity is rated as 10 percent disabling. The Board found that this condition does not warrant a higher rating due to its mild nature.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the cause of death and its relation to service, particularly Agent Orange exposure. A VA opinion is needed to determine if esophageal cancer was caused by service.

The Board has ordered a remand to determine if the Veteran is paying monthly support to his estranged spouse and children, and to clarify C.T.'s VA dependency status.

The Veteran's emergency room visit at HFRMC on September 24, 2013 was deemed necessary due to his urgent medical condition. The Board found that a prudent layperson would have expected delay in seeking immediate medical attention to be hazardous and that a VA facility was not feasibly available during the emergency.

The Veteran withdrew her appeal for service connection of chronic pain syndrome before the Board could make a decision.

The Board has determined that the appellant's discharge from service was due to willful and persistent misconduct, which constitutes a bar to VA compensation benefits.

The Veteran's timely substantive appeal on his claim for service connection for PTSD was accepted, as the circumstances of him caring for his sick father beyond his control caused a delay in filing.

The Board has remanded the DIC claims due to the need for additional development, including obtaining Social Security Administration records and determining if new and material evidence has been received. The accrued benefits claim is also being remanded.

The Veteran's death was not caused by or related to his service-connected conditions, and the claim for service connection for the cause of death is denied. The veteran did not meet the criteria for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) under 38 U.S.C. § 1318.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's right eye condition, which was present prior to service, did not worsen during service and is therefore not considered aggravated. As a result, the claim for service connection for this condition is denied.

The Veteran's step son is seeking an extended delimiting date for Dependents Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits. The RO has not made a finding as to whether the appellant is the Veteran’s dependent and must be remanded to adjudicate his claim with the appropriate date of eligibility.

The Board has remanded the case due to issues with its reasoning and for additional development, including a VA examination.

The appellant's claim for waiver of recovery of an overpayment of benefits under CHAMPVA from March 1, 2005, to March 30, 2008 has been denied. The Board is remanding the case due to a lack of a statement of the case.

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

The Board found that the appellant was not eligible for Medicare Part A benefits from March 1, 2005 to March 30, 2008 due to her SSA disability benefits being terminated. As a result, she remained eligible for CHAMPVA benefits during this period.

The Veteran's Non-Hodgkin’s B-cell lymphoma is presumed to be due to herbicide exposure, but the service connection is remanded for further verification of such exposure.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the Veteran's service connection for subvalvular aortic stenosis, including verification of her additional periods of active duty service and clarification on whether her chest pain in service was an early manifestation of her current condition.

The Veteran's surviving spouse was owed death pension benefits that were withheld due to issues with the designated bank account. The Appellant, as the conservator appointed by the courts, seeks payment of these accrued benefits for her late spouse. However, the criteria for eligibility are not met and payment is denied.

The Board found that the Veteran's former spouse was properly removed from his VA compensation benefits as of November 1, 2013, due to their divorce. The Veteran's appeal regarding this matter is denied.