Other conditions decisions — 2018

The Veteran's bilateral heel spurs are found to be etiologically linked to her active service.,There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that the Veteran's residuals of gallbladder removal and uterine fibroids status-post hysterectomy/tubal ligation are causally or etiologically related to her active service.

The Board denied claims for earlier effective dates for nonservice-connected pension and Special Monthly Pension (SMP) based on the need for aid and attendance, finding that the Veteran did not meet eligibility criteria established by a liberalizing law enacted in 2001.

The Board has remanded the case for another VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's claimed disability of the male reproductive system, including epididymitis, varicocele, and hydrocele.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for accrued benefits as she is not a child for VA purposes and did not bear any expenses of last sickness or burial.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's DVT is secondary to his service-connected migraine headaches and grants service connection for this condition.

The Board denied the appellant's request for an earlier effective date for service connection for cause of the Veteran's death, finding that the earliest possible effective date is April 21, 2011, based on the liberalizing law and application of VA regulations.

The Board has remanded the case due to new evidence received in 2012 showing that the Appellant served in combat in Vietnam and was injured. The case will be reconsidered under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c) as a matter of new and material evidence.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for basal cell carcinoma was denied as there is no current diagnosis of the condition and the evidence does not support a finding that it is related to his military service.

The Board denied the appellant's request for a waiver of overpayment of NSC pension benefits, finding that her misrepresentation of income resulted in the creation of the overpayment and thus waived recovery.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient medical opinions regarding the etiology of the Veteran's eye disorder and for obtaining additional VA treatment records.

The Board has remanded the case for further development and calculation of accrued benefits due to the appellant as the person who bore the expense of last sickness and burial of her aunt (the widow). The effective date will be determined based on the amount of unpaid benefits at the time of the widow's death, up to the amount personally paid by the appellant.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded due to conflicting calculations of his VA educational assistance benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The AOJ should prepare an accounting regarding the use of these benefits from August 2, 2011 to March 10, 2013 and provide a copy of this accounting to the Veteran.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for a new VA examination to assess the current severity of his service-connected ptosis of the right upper eyelid.

The Board finds no legal basis for the appellant's claim of entitlement to medical, funeral, and burial benefits under the law. The appellant did not personally pay for the burial, funeral, and medical expenses and was not officially appointed as an executor by a judge and issued letters testamentary.

The Veteran's death during the appeal has rendered this case moot, and thus the Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the claim.

The Board denied the petition to reopen claims for DIC, accrued benefits, and death pension due to lack of new and material evidence.,The appellant's income exceeded the maximum annual pension rate, preventing her from receiving nonservice-connected death pension.

The Veteran's service-connected ulcerative colitis and urge incontinence have rendered him unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation, warranting a TDIU.

The Board has ordered a remand for additional development to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's right eye disability, including whether it is related to service or aggravated by his service-connected left eye blindness.

The Board finds that the Appellant does not qualify as a surviving spouse for purposes of VA benefits, regardless of whether she was legally married to the Veteran at the time of his death. The evidence shows that they lived in different states and there is no credible explanation for how they could have cohabitated continuously from their marriage until the Veteran's death.

The Board has remanded the claims due to new evidence and a need for further medical opinion regarding service connection.