Other conditions decisions — 2018

The Board has decided to remand the case due to uncertainty regarding when the Veteran incurred an increase in income from Social Security Administration (SSA) benefits, which affected his VA pension overpayment.

The Board denied the veteran's spouse's claim for nonservice-connected death pension benefits as he did not have qualifying service in the Merchant Marines and was not receiving compensation or retirement pay for a service-connected disability.

The Board has ordered the RO to gather specific medical expense information and documentation for the Veteran's assisted living facility, as well as any increases in costs. The matter is being remanded to reconsider the pension entitlement based on this new evidence.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete service treatment records and a need for an examination to determine if the Veteran's tympanic membrane perforation is related to his Army Reserve service, specifically exposure to 50 caliber gun noise inside of an M60 tank.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of spinal meningitis is remanded due to the lack of in-service medical records and outstanding private medical records. The Board requests additional attempts to obtain these records, including those from his reported hospitalization at Camp Perry, Virginia.

The Board denied service connection for the cause of death due to esophageal cancer and embolism to superior mesenteric artery caused by service-connected conditions, as there was no evidence showing that these conditions were incurred or aggravated by Agent Orange exposure.

The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for service connection of left eye cataract was denied as there is no evidence that he filed a formal or informal claim prior to October 8, 1965.

The Board has remanded the cases for further development and examination, including obtaining medical opinions on the etiology of the Veteran's OSA and GERD, as well as a TDIU determination. The claims for service connection for bilateral varicose veins and anemia are denied.

The Veteran's PVD of the right and left lower extremities was granted an initial 40 percent rating from March 23, 2005 to September 21, 2011.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal for an increased rating for Crohn's disease before the Board could make a decision.

The Board has remanded the claims of service connection for gastrointestinal disorder and chronic atrial fibrillation due to inadequate previous examinations. The Veteran's lay statements regarding his symptoms during service are noted.

The Veteran's appeal was dismissed due to their death, and the Board has no jurisdiction to proceed with the merits of the case.

The appeal is dismissed because the Veteran died during the pendency of the appeal and the Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this case.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's current left leg disability is not related to his active service, and therefore denied his claim for service connection.

The Veteran's increased rating claim for his left foot disability is denied as it does not meet the criteria for a rating in excess of 30 percent.

The Board has determined that the appellant's claim of having a valid common law marriage with the Veteran prior to March 2008 needs further development and reconsideration. The VA will need to gather additional evidence, including signed statements from the appellant regarding her knowledge of the legal impediment in 1988, and any supporting documents showing shared addresses.

The Veteran's appeal was dismissed because they died during the pendency of the appeal.

The Veteran is granted an earlier effective date of March 1, 2000 for additional compensation based on dependents. The Veteran provided the necessary information regarding his dependents in conjunction with his original claim and was subsequently awarded a combined rating of 40 percent as of March 1, 2000.

The Veteran's claim for a TDIU prior to February 21, 2013 was dismissed as the appeal is moot since he has already been granted a full grant of the benefit sought on appeal.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence and a need for further examination. The Veteran's left leg disability is currently being evaluated, but more information is needed from his service records and VA treatment history.