Other conditions decisions — 2018

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding a right hand injury during service, and the Veteran should be scheduled for an examination.

The Board has granted the reopening of the Veteran's claims for service connection for a right eye injury and cold weather injuries to his upper and lower extremities, but has remanded these issues for further development.

The Board denied the Veteran's request for waiver of an overpayment due to her failure to notify VA of her divorce, finding that she was at fault in creating the debt and denying recovery would not result in undue financial hardship.

The Veteran's tuberculous pleurisy disability is being remanded for further evaluation to determine its current severity.

The Board has decided that the Veteran's left hip disability and TDIU claims need further examination and development before a final decision can be made.

The Board has decided that the Veteran's claims for a higher rating for his left hip injury and TDIU are remanded due to inadequate examination, need for updated treatment records, and inextricably intertwined issues.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to an inadequate opinion in a previous VA examination regarding whether the Veteran's thoracic spine disability is related to service.

The Veteran's claim for additional educational assistance benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill Program is denied as he has no legal entitlement to more than 48 months of VA educational assistance benefits.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete records, specifically missing mental health treatment records from Fort Campbell.

The appellant has withdrawn the appeal for entitlement to nonservice-connected burial allowance, and there are no longer any allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim of service connection for a bilateral hip disorder, finding that his current condition is not related to his military service.

The Board denied the Veteran's request for an earlier effective date of February 11, 2010, for his grant of a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities. The Board found that it was not factually ascertainable that the Veteran became unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation within one year prior to filing the TDIU claim.

The Veteran's claim for a rating in excess of 20 percent for traumatic arthritis, right shoulder and rotator cuff was denied. The claim for an initial compensable rating for right shoulder scars associated with the same conditions was also denied.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for subcutaneous soft tissue masses of the left upper arm, suprapubic area, and right foot (claimed as cysts due to exposure to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune) has been denied. The Board found that there is no evidence linking these conditions to his active duty service or to exposure to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune.

The appellant, who is the Veteran's daughter and was born in 1993, does not qualify as a child eligible for VA benefits because she had already reached the age of 23 at the time her application was received.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's malignant mesothelioma is at least as likely as not related to his in-service exposure to asbestos, and thus service connection for this condition is granted.

The Board denied service connection for diverticulosis and colon polyps as the evidence did not support a link to service or environmental exposure, and the Veteran's current conditions were attributed to his age, weight, and diet.

The Board denied the appellant's claim of being a surviving spouse for VA Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) benefit purposes due to her divorce from the Veteran, which was deemed valid. The new evidence submitted did not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim.

The Board has remanded the case due to a need for new and material evidence regarding the previously denied claim of burial benefits. The appellant was not provided proper notice, so she should be given another opportunity to provide information and/or evidence.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for DEA benefits after her marriage in April 17, 1993 because the educational institution she attended was not approved by VA at the time of her enrollment.