Other conditions decisions — 2019

The Veteran withdrew his appeal regarding the evaluation for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and the effective date of service connection for this condition.

The Veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 is remanded due to the need for an addendum opinion from an ophthalmologist regarding whether his right eye blindness was caused by VA medical treatment and if so, whether it was due to carelessness or negligence.

The Veteran's daughter is not eligible for accrued benefits as she did not meet the legal definition of a 'child' and did not bear the expense of her father's last sickness or burial.

The Veteran's cardiac condition (claimed as sinus bradycardia, sinus arrythmia, AV block and left ventricular hypertrophy) is remanded due to the lack of a VA examination. The Board finds that an examination should be conducted which addresses any possible nexus between the Veteran’s currently diagnosed atrial fibrillation and his military service.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a respiratory disability, including chronic pneumonia, finding no current diagnosis of such condition.

The appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's death.

The Board denied a claim for an increased rating for service-connected status post right inguinal hernia, finding that the Veteran's symptoms did not warrant a higher disability rating.

The Board has granted the Veteran's petition to reopen his claim of entitlement to service connection for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), but denied the claim itself due to lack of a causal relationship between ALS and service.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to incomplete information regarding the Veteran's address and location on July 7, 2016, as well as his personal liability for expenses incurred at Memorial Hospital Jacksonville.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for service connection for squamous cell carcinoma and actinic keratosis due to potential in-service sun exposure. The AOJ is instructed to obtain additional medical records, including private treatment records from Dr. F.A., and schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine if his skin conditions are related to military service.

The Veteran's right foot bunion was not rated compensable prior to November 15, 2017. From that date onwards, a 10% rating is granted for the condition. The left foot bunion issue and TDIU claim are remanded due to new evidence.

The Board has determined that the issue of nonservice-connected pension benefits needs to be remanded for proper development, including issuance of a Statement of the Case.

The Board denied the appellant's request for an apportionment of the Veteran’s VA benefits on behalf of their child, E.A., finding that she has not demonstrated financial hardship and thus cannot receive a special apportionment.

The Veteran's death was caused by chronic myelomonocytic leukemia, which is service-connected. The Veteran did not meet the criteria for DIC benefits due to his service-connected disabilities.

The Board has determined that the appellant's service discharge character is no longer a bar to receiving VA benefits.

The Veteran's request for a waiver of the collection of overpayment of VA education benefits was denied because it was not filed within 180 days from notification.

The Veteran's unauthorized medical expenses at Naples Community Hospital on May 31, 2016 are covered due to the emergency nature of his condition and the lack of availability of a VA facility.

The Board has determined that the appellant is competent to handle disbursement of VA funds, considering her medical conditions and her daughter's testimony.

The Board denied compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for an eye disorder, finding that the Veteran's additional disability was not caused by VA carelessness, negligence, lack of skill or similar incidence of fault.

The Veteran's net worth was found to be excessive for the receipt of VA NSC pension benefits, and his expenses exceeded his income by $3,599.28 annually without considering income generated by trusts. The Board denied the claim as he did not meet the net worth requirements.