Other conditions decisions — 2019

The Veteran's child, A.H., is granted a 20% apportionment of the Veteran's VA disability compensation benefits on behalf of A.H. The decision was made due to the Veteran's failure to pay consistent child support and the financial hardship it caused.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded due to the need for a VA examination to determine the current severity of her service-connected arteriovenous fistula embolization right lower lobe, status post-surgical repair.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the Veteran's service connection claims, particularly his claim for cause of death related to ITP and sepsis. The VA is instructed to obtain additional medical records and determine if the Veteran was exposed to Agent Orange during his Korean service.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete financial records for payment of a hospital bill from 1988. The Veteran's service connection claim for his left pinky injury with nerve damage remains pending.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a subcutaneous lesion, finding that it was neither caused by his service-connected hepatitis C nor related to any medications he took for his hepatitis C. The Board also found that there was no nexus between the subcutaneous lesion and his active duty.

The Board dismissed the appeal regarding the overpayment of VA compensation benefits because the Veteran's waiver of the overpayment has rendered moot any argument about its validity.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for additional accrued benefits for the purpose of reimbursement of expenses relating to his mother's last sickness and burial, stating that he did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims.

The Veteran's peptic ulcer disease and history of excision of pterygium of both eyes are being remanded for further evaluation. Additionally, the cause of death is also being remanded to obtain a medical opinion regarding whether the Veteran’s service-connected conditions contributed to his death.

The Board has determined that VA legally garnished the Veteran's disability compensation payments as ordered by a state court, and thus denied the claim.

The Board denied the appellant's request for an effective date prior to October 1, 2011, for the grant of an apportionment of the Veteran’s VA disability compensation benefits. The earliest effective date permitted by law is October 1, 2011.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to inadequate medical examination, and further development is needed.

The appellant is not recognized as the Veteran's surviving spouse, and therefore her claims for DIC benefits, accrued benefits, and death pension are denied.

The Veteran's service-connected pseudophakia of the right eye has not been productive of incapacitating episodes or visual impairment that would warrant a compensable rating. As such, his claim for a higher rating is denied.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claim due to insufficient examination and opinions regarding his scrotal cysts, which may be related to service. The case will be returned for further development.

The Board has decided that the cause of the Veteran's death is related to his service-connected asbestos exposure, but needs further clarification from a VA examiner regarding the relationship between the chronic obstructive lung disease and the asbestos exposure.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the relationship between the Veteran's basal cell carcinoma and his service, specifically whether it is related to Agent Orange exposure or if it was present shortly after separation from service.

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant died during the pendency of the appeal, and thus the Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits.

The Board denied increased ratings for service-connected chronic otitis externa and perforated tympanic membrane, finding that the evidence did not support a compensable rating for either condition.

The Veteran's congestive heart failure with permanent atrial fibrillation is not the result of carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, error in judgment or other instance of fault on the part of VA. Therefore, compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for these conditions has been denied.

The Board dismissed the appeal because the appellant requested to withdraw it before a decision was made.