Other conditions decisions — 2019

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities made it impossible for him to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation prior to May 29, 2012.

The Board finds that the Appellant and Veteran were married for more than a year prior to the Veteran's death, allowing the Appellant to be recognized as his surviving spouse for VA DIC benefits purposes.

The Veteran's death certificate indicates he was divorced at the time of his death. The Appellant, who is not legally married to the Veteran and has no evidence that they were living together as husband and wife outside of North Carolina, cannot be recognized as the surviving spouse for purposes of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC).

The Veteran's surviving spouse was granted death pension benefits and special monthly pension based on the need for aid and attendance. The decision also noted that her SMP based on housebound status is rendered moot due to the grant of SMP based on aid and attendance.

The Board denied the Veteran's requests to reopen his claims for service connection for broken knuckles of both hands due to lack of new and relevant evidence.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete medical records and documents submitted at a hearing. The appellant is asked to provide authorization for VA to obtain her private treatment records, which will then be associated with the file.

The Veteran's stroke during an elective surgery at a non-VA facility was deemed to be an ordinary known risk of the procedure, and thus VA is not liable for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151.

The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date of July 25, 2012 for a 20% rating for left calf muscle injury is denied as there was no factual increase in severity within one year prior to the claim.

The Veteran's claim for TDIU was received on February 6, 2006. The effective date of the TDIU is granted as early as February 6, 2006, based on medical evidence indicating he had been unemployable due to service-connected disabilities since at least 2002.

The Board has remanded the case due to concerns about informed consent for the February 2005 surgical procedure. The Veteran's prognosis if he had not undergone the surgery is being evaluated.

The Veteran's appeal for service connection for neurobehavioral effects has been dismissed due to the death of the appellant.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to missing records and incomplete information regarding Medicare coverage of medical expenses. The Veteran's claim for reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses will be reconsidered with additional evidence.

The Board has remanded three issues, including an overpayment of benefits and a waiver of the debt. The validity of these matters needs to be addressed through issuance of a Statement of the Case (SOC).

The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate medical opinions and a need for a pulmonary function test (PFT). The Veteran's respiratory condition is to be evaluated again, including any use of inhalational bronchodilator therapy.

The Board previously denied the Appellant's claims for service connection for the cause of the Veteran’s death and entitlement to DIC benefits or pension benefits. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) has now remanded these issues due to a lack of verification of the Veteran's periods of active duty service.

The Veteran's cause of death was listed as aspiration pneumonia. The Board found that the preponderance of evidence did not support a finding that his death was related to his service-connected bilateral hearing loss, and thus denied the claim for service connection for the cause of death.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a right lower extremity blood clot disability as there is no evidence of such a condition during or after his military service.

The Board dismissed the appeal because the appellant withdrew his appeal in writing.

The Board denied the Appellant's claims for nonservice-connected death pension and special monthly pension based on a finding that her income exceeded the applicable limits, and she did not meet the criteria for needing regular aid and attendance or being permanently housebound.

Your appeal for a higher rating for hiatal hernia has been dismissed because the Board's previous decision is final and you did not file an appeal or motion.