Other conditions decisions — 2019

The Board has decided that the amount of offset from DIC benefits due to a Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) settlement should be determined. The case is being remanded for further investigation into who received what portion of the $525,000 settlement.

The Veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of medical services received at Lakeland Regional Medical Center from April 20, 2016 to April 22, 2016 is granted due to the emergency nature of his condition and the unavailability of a VA facility.

The Veteran's death was covered by VA, as they paid for his hospice care at Langdale Hospice Center. The Board granted the claim for nonservice-connected burial benefits.

The Board has determined that the Appellant is entitled to recognition as the surviving spouse of the Veteran for the purpose of receiving VA death benefits.

The Board dismissed the appeal as there was no longer a case or controversy regarding the eligibility for an additional allowance of DIC benefits for D. La.S.J., who is over the age of 18 and has been granted permanent incapacity for self-support.

The Veteran's claim for an increased rating in excess of 40 percent for narcolepsy with cataplexy is granted, but not higher than 80 percent.,The Veteran's claim for a TDIU due to service-connected disabilities is granted.

The Veteran's son E. was not eligible for additional dependency benefits from June 2010 to April 2012 due to his age at the time of school attendance.,The Veteran's son J. was not eligible for additional dependency benefits from June 2010 to April 2014 due to his age at the time of school attendance.,The Veteran's daughter M. was eligible for additional dependency benefits from March [Redacted], 2012 to January 31, 2014 based on her full-time college attendance.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for PTSD, depression, a left hip disorder, and bilateral hearing loss have been granted. The claim for bilateral hip disorders is remanded.

The appellant does not have spina bifida, and her mother is not a Vietnam veteran. Therefore, the claim for benefits under 38 U.S.C. §§ 1805 and 1815 is denied.

The Board denied the Veteran's request for an earlier effective date for additional compensation for his dependent spouse, finding that the claim was not received until December 5, 2017, which is later than the date dependency arose (September 9, 2006).

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

The Board has granted service connection for ureterolithiasis and remanded the issues of service connection for right foot tendinitis and a compensable rating for cholecystectomy.

The Board found that the Veteran's VA Form 9 was timely filed, reversing the RO's decision and reinstating the underlying appeal.

The appellant's annual income exceeds the maximum annual pension rate for death pension benefits, thus she is not eligible for these benefits.

The appellant's claim for accrued benefits was denied as she did not file a timely application within one year of her grandfather's death.

The Board denied service connection for idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura with splenectomy (ITP) as the evidence did not support a finding that ITP began during active service or was related to an in-service injury or disease.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to a lack of a VA examination for the left elbow injury. The Veteran's service connection claims for back and left elbow injuries are pending.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for service connection for insomnia disorder and memory loss, including as secondary to an insomnia disorder. The AOJ is instructed to obtain military personnel records and determine if the Veteran served in Southwest Asia. VA examinations are also required to address the nature and etiology of the claimed disabilities.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for recognition as a surviving spouse for basic eligibility for VA dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) benefits, finding that there was no continuous cohabitation between her and the Veteran.

The Board has remanded the case due to issues with contested claims procedures and a need for further adjudication.