Other conditions decisions — 2019

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient medical opinions regarding whether the Veteran's hilar cholangiocarcinoma was caused by a liver fluke infection during service. The claims file needs to be reviewed and another medical opinion requested.

Your appeals for special monthly pension and nonservice-connected pension have been dismissed as your appeal was withdrawn through the Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP).

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claim for service connection for peripheral artery disease (PAD) and a bilateral leg condition, as secondary to his service-connected coronary artery disease. The case is being returned for further development including obtaining medical opinions on whether PAD is caused or aggravated by his service-connected coronary artery disease.

The Veteran's cause of death was granted service connection with an effective date of May 31, 2011. The Board found that the appellant is entitled to this effective date as it is the earliest date her informal claim to reopen the previously denied and final claim was received by VA.

The Veteran's claim for Chapter 33 educational assistance benefits was denied because the program at the University of Leicester, where he enrolled in a post-graduate certificate program, is not an approved program of education under VA regulations.

The Board denied the Veteran's request for an earlier effective date for service connection of Crohn's disease, finding that no formal or informal claim was filed prior to October 6, 2015.

The Board denied the Veteran's petition to reopen her claim for service connection for chronic dysmenorrhea as new and material evidence was not received, despite the submission of post-service medical records.

The Board has decided that the appellant's death pension benefits should be adjusted due to her income exceeding the maximum annual pension rate. The decision is pending as further information from Social Security Administration (SSA) regarding the appellant’s income for 2016 and 2017 is required.

The Board denied the Appellant's claim to be recognized as the Veteran's surviving spouse, finding that they were divorced and had not remarried at the time of the Veteran's death.

The Board has remanded the case due to outstanding treatment records and a need for additional development, including an addendum VA examination.

The Veteran's claim for an increased rating of hidradenitis suppurative (HS) was denied, and the case is remanded. The TDIU claim is also remanded.

The Board has granted an effective date of February 2, 2013 for the award of DIC benefits to the Veteran's children due to their mother's remarriage.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's claims for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 are remanded due to insufficient medical opinions regarding the cause of his additional disabilities.

The Board denied the Veteran's petition to reopen his claim for service connection due to a post-operative repair of congenital omphalocele with abdominal pain, finding no new and material evidence supporting the claim.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding whether the Veteran's bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy is related to her active service. The issues of service connection and SMC are inextricably intertwined.

The Veteran's claim for beneficiary travel payment was denied because he did not apply within 30 days of completing his medical appointments, as required by VA regulations.

The Board has granted service connection for actinic keratosis and squamous cell carcinoma in situ, finding that the evidence is at least evenly balanced as to whether these conditions had their onset during service. The decision resolves reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran.

The Board found that the Appellant's character of discharge was under other than honorable conditions due to willful and persistent misconduct, and thus a bar to VA benefits. The appeal is denied.

The Veteran's only service-connected condition was a gunshot wound to the left buttock, which was rated at 20 percent. The appellant did not have any pending claims for benefits at the time of his father's death and thus is not entitled to accrued benefits.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for death pension benefits because her income exceeded the maximum annual pension rate set by law.