Other conditions decisions — 2019

The Veteran's appeal was dismissed due to his death, and the Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this case.

The Board has remanded the case for further development and readjudication, including consideration of what evaluation(s) is/are warranted for residuals of squamous cell cancer of the oral cavity at the tongue base since December 7, 2007.

The Veteran's chronic lymphocytic leukemia is related to his active duty service and the Board has granted service connection for this condition.

The Board dismissed the appeal as there is no longer a justiciable case or controversy concerning whether the overpayment of VA compensation benefits due to the retroactive removal of J.S. was proper.

The Veteran's TDIU claim is remanded due to unclear employment history and the need for updated VA Form 21-8940. Additionally, SSA records must be obtained.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for residuals of a facial injury to include a dental injury with fractured and chipped teeth, jaw disability, other residuals of a left eye injury, and residuals of a head injury. The evidence did not show that these conditions were incurred in or aggravated by military service.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to the need for a VA examination to address the Veteran's contentions and additional evidence provided at his hearing, including his claims of eye disabilities related to service.

The Board is remanding the case to determine if the Veteran's bilateral leg pain causes functional impairment and whether it is related to service.

The Board denied increased initial evaluations for left elbow epicondylitis and left little toe arthrotomy residuals, as well as a compensable rating for the scar as a residual of the arthrotomy surgery. The Veteran's conditions are currently rated at 10 percent.

The decision is remanded due to the appellant's income and unreimbursed medical expenses not being accurately determined, and verification of her Social Security Administration (SSA) income is required.

The Board has remanded the case due to unclear information regarding the Veteran's rate of pursuit and enrollment periods, which is necessary for determining whether the overpayment in the amount of $15,962.44 was properly created.

The Board has determined that a remand is necessary to obtain an additional VA medical opinion regarding the Veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 due to his neck exploration surgery performed by VA in February 2007.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the Veteran's respiratory disorder and throat condition, including any potential radiation exposure during service. The AOJ is instructed to obtain all relevant treatment records and schedule a VA examination.

The VA denied compensation benefits for residuals of a hernia surgery due to the finding that the surgery was not caused by negligence or lack of proper skill, and there is no evidence suggesting it was an event not reasonably foreseeable.

The Board has remanded the claims for service connection and TDIU due to insufficient information regarding the nature of the Veteran's leg cramps during service, which may have been caused by a superimposed disease or injury.

The Veteran's myelofibrosis is not presumed to be related to herbicide exposure, and a VA examination is needed to determine if it is related to service.

The Board denied the Appellant's claim for recognition as the Veteran’s surviving spouse, concluding that she was not married to him at the time of his death and thus did not meet the legal criteria for eligibility.

The Board denied service connection for a cerebrovascular accident (CVA or stroke) as secondary to the service-connected disability of diabetes mellitus, type II.

The Veteran's spouse and child are denied an apportionment of the Veteran’s compensation benefits due to the maximum amount already being awarded.

The Veteran's residuals of a fracture to the right calcaneus are rated at 20 percent, which is considered 'moderately severe' based on his symptoms and functional impairment. The appeal was granted.