Other conditions decisions — 2018

The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for a 60 percent rating for hypertensive cardiac disease was denied. The Board found that the evidence did not show an increase in severity of the condition prior to July 25, 2014.

The Board has determined that additional development is needed for the Veteran's claims regarding his left and right knee disabilities, including obtaining new examinations to comply with Correia v. McDonald (2016).

The Board denied Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) based on service connection for cause of death, as well as nonservice-connected death pension. The claims were denied due to a lack of verified military service.

The Board has decided to remand the case for additional development, including obtaining medical records and conducting a VA examination.

The Veteran's son is not considered a Camp Lejeune family member due to insufficient residency at the base, and therefore does not meet eligibility criteria for payment or reimbursement of non-VA medical care.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient medical opinion regarding the relationship between the Veteran's service-connected type II diabetes mellitus and peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities and his claimed hammertoes and claw foot.

The Board has granted an effective date of June 27, 2007 for the assignment of special monthly compensation based on the need for regular aid and attendance under 38U.S.C. §1114(l). This decision is based on evidence showing that the Veteran met the criteria for this benefit as early as June 27, 2007.

The Veteran's GIST was not shown to be related to service or exposure to herbicide agents. The Board denied the claim for service connection.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient medical opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran's squamous cell carcinoma and its relation to service, specifically exposure to herbicide agents.

The Board found that the reduction of compensation benefits retroactively, effective November 1, 2006, and the creation of an overpayment due to the termination of her marriage to E.M. were proper.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for a dental condition, claimed as a residual injury due to fractured teeth, is denied. The case is remanded for further action regarding treatment purposes.

The Board denied service connection for a skin disorder involving the bilateral lower extremities, finding no evidence linking it to service. The issues of rating PTSD and total disability based on individual unemployability are remanded.

The Board has determined that remand is necessary to clarify the specific actions taken regarding the Veteran’s VA disability benefits for fiscal years 2009 through 2012, and to determine whether there was any overpayment created for those years specifically.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding whether the Veteran's vision condition is aggravated by his service-connected diabetes.

The Veteran's VA disability compensation was reduced for 19 days due to receipt of military drill pay in fiscal year 2009. The Board found that the reduction was warranted based on the available evidence, including information from the Defense Manpower Data Center.

The Board has determined that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of a respiratory disease or alopecia, and thus service connection for these conditions is denied. The issue of right wrist dislocation is remanded as no VA examiner has provided an opinion on its relationship to active service.

The Veteran's claim for VA non-service-connected pension benefits was denied because he did not have the requisite service during a period of war, and thus does not meet the basic eligibility requirements.

The Veteran's non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is granted a 100% rating effective February 17, 2012. The Veteran's bilateral lower extremity venous insufficiency is remanded for further development.

The Veteran's appeal was dismissed due to his death, and the case is now closed.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to a lack of proper notification and evidence regarding the appellant's helplessness status. The VA needs to provide clearer instructions on what evidence is required, obtain medical records from private providers, and verify the appellant’s educational history.