Other conditions decisions — 2019

The Board has granted a special apportionment of 20 percent of the Veteran's VA disability compensation benefits to the appellant on behalf of her child, C.A. The decision is based on financial hardship demonstrated by the appellant and no undue financial hardship caused by the grant of the apportionment for the Veteran.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for left side indirect inguinal hernia is reopened due to the submission of new and material evidence. However, the case is remanded as further medical examination is needed to determine if the hernia is related to his active duty service.

The Board has remanded the case due to further development being required regarding the Veteran's dystonia, right arm tremors. The issues of entitlement to service connection for dystonia of the left arm and bilateral legs have also been raised but not adjudicated.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for arthritis, finding that there is not sufficient evidence to link his current arthritis to his military service.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's malignant fibrous histiocytoma is related to his exposure to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune, and thus grants service connection for this condition.

The Veteran's death was not caused by a service-connected condition, and burial benefits are denied as there is no causal connection to his military service.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient examination and medical opinion regarding herbicide exposure as a cause of gastrointestinal disorders. The Veteran's private physician provided a nexus opinion, but no VA examiner addressed this issue.

The Veteran's application for vocational rehabilitation and employment (VR&E) benefits was denied because he is currently gainfully employed in a job that aligns with his abilities, aptitudes, and interests. The Board found no employment handicap due to service-connected disabilities.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient verification of the Veteran's exposure to herbicides during service, which is required for presumptive service connection.

The Veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 due to a left eye condition resulting from VA treatment is remanded as the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination and additional evidence may be needed.

The Board has remanded the claims for service connection due to a lack of VA treatment records from private doctors, Dr. Cirilli and Dr. Mansor.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete records and a need for an examination to determine if the Veteran's right eye disability is related to his service.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for an eye disability, finding that his vision problems were not causally or etiologically related to an in-service event, injury or disease.

The Board has dismissed the appeal for an earlier effective date for recognizing the Veteran's marriage to V.M. as his spouse for additional dependency compensation.

The Board has remanded the case for an additional VA examination to evaluate the Veteran's bilateral fibrocystic disease and mastodynia and all scars, as the previous examinations were inadequate after the Veteran underwent a left breast excisional biopsy on February 27, 2015.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for right hip pain, finding that it is not proximately due to his service-connected right ankle fracture.

The Board has remanded the claims for increased ratings for bilateral lower extremity cold injuries due to a duty to assist error. The Veteran is also denied an effective date prior to August 8, 2017 for service connection of his foot disabilities.

The Veteran's stroke was caused by his service-connected hypertension, and the Board granted service connection for this condition.

The Veteran's claims for service connection of various conditions have been denied, with the exception of a left elbow scar and lower back scars (pain), which were granted an effective date of April 14, 2015.

The Veteran's father is not eligible for survivor's pension as he did not meet the eligibility criteria and his claim was filed more than one year after the Veteran's death.