Other conditions decisions — 2019

The Board has decided to remand the case for further review, including a determination on whether the overpayment was properly created and a financial status review. The Veteran's claim will be reconsidered after these actions.

The veteran's service did not meet the required criteria for VA loan guaranty benefits due to insufficient qualifying service in the Selected Reserve.

The Board dismissed the appeal regarding survivor pension benefits as the appellant requested a withdrawal of her appeal.

The Board denied service connection for the Veteran's claimed conditions, finding that his C5 incomplete quadriplegia and related disabilities were not caused by or aggravated by his service-connected PTSD.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete documentation regarding the appellant's claim for eligibility to Dependents’ Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits under 38 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

The Board has decided that the Veteran's right ovary removal is related to her in-service pedestrian/motor vehicle accident and abdominal surgery. The intestinal damage claim needs further examination as no opinion was provided regarding its relation to service.

The Board has decided to remand the case for further development due to the need for a retrospective opinion regarding the severity of the Veteran's service-connected residuals of ulcerative colitis prior to May 1, 2015.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to a need for more contemporaneous examination of the Veteran's back disability. The Veteran is required to provide information about any relevant private medical records and undergo an orthopedic/neurological examination.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete information regarding the Veteran's service aboard USS Francis Hammond and potential exposure to herbicide agents.

The Board found that the termination of non-service-connected pension benefits and creation of an overpayment due to receipt of SSA disability compensation were proper, as the Veteran did not report this income despite being informed multiple times.

The Veteran's income exceeded the threshold for VA healthcare without copayment, so his claim is denied.

The Veteran's back brace was found to cause wear and tear on his clothing, which meets the criteria for a clothing allowance. The Board granted this claim based on the evidence being in equipoise as to whether the back brace caused such wear and tear.

The Board has remanded the case due to uncertainty in the STRs and the need for additional medical opinions regarding the etiology of the Veteran's choroiditis.

The Veteran was hospitalized at Baylor University Hospital for recurrent C-difficile colitis infection. The VA denied the claim, stating that a VA facility was available to provide the type of care he received. However, the appellant argues that no confirmation of this availability or transfer attempts were made. The Board is remanded to obtain documentation of any communication between BUH and VA from February 24, 2013 through March 5, 2013 concerning the Veteran's hospitalization.

The Board has decided that the change in the Veteran's means test eligibility category from exempt to copay required for income year 2016 was improper and has remanded the case for further action.

The Board has denied service connection for a right clavicle fracture and has remanded the claim of entitlement to TDIU due to service-connected disabilities.

The Veteran's atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease with carotid artery stenosis is granted as service connected due to presumed exposure to herbicide agents during his Vietnam service.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for a skin disability and hypertension. The case is being remanded to obtain an addendum opinion regarding the relationship between the Veteran's hypertension and his service-connected diabetes mellitus.

The Board has decided that the change in the Veteran's means test eligibility category from exempt to copay required for income year 2015 was improper and remanded the case for further action.

The Board has restored the appellant's death pension benefits due to an error in calculating her net worth, which included assets held in a trust. The termination of her benefits was improper.