Other conditions decisions — 2019

The Veteran's appeal is remanded to determine if the VA care caused additional disabilities as a result of July 2016 debridement.

The Board found the overpayment of $2,755.26 for tuition and fees valid because the Veteran withdrew from her classes, but did not grant any mitigating circumstances or exceptions.

The Board denied the Appellant's request to reopen her claim for service connection for the Veteran’s cause of death, finding no new and material evidence that would support reopening the case.

The Veteran's child is eligible for retroactive Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits from June 11, 2009. The appeal is granted as the appellant meets the legal criteria for eligibility.

The Board has remanded the claims for service connection for numbness in the upper and lower extremities secondary to diabetes mellitus due to inadequate examination and treatment records review.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for an addendum opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran's left hip disorder, including whether it is related to his military service and/or aggravated by his service-connected bilateral knee disabilities.

The overpayment of VRAP benefits in the amount of $2087.47 was properly created, and the Veteran's appeal for a waiver is remanded due to lack of updated financial information.

The Veteran's right great toe disability was rated at 10 percent prior to November 13, 2018 and at 20 percent thereafter. The Board denied the claim for higher ratings.

The Veteran's appeal for service connection for brain cancer was dismissed due to his death.

The Veteran's liver cancer, which caused his death in August 1997, is presumed to have been incurred due to exposure to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune during service. Therefore, the cause of the Veteran’s death is granted as service-connected.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the relationship between the Veteran's metastatic adenocarcinoma and his periods of active service, as well as whether it was proximately due to or aggravated by his service-connected malaria.

The Board has reopened the Veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral thrombophlebitis and remanded it for further development.

The Board is remanding the cases to clarify whether the Veteran's overpayment was properly created and if she should be granted a waiver of the debt. The issues are related to the validity and waiver of the $5,927.87 VRAP benefits overpayment.

The Board is remanding the cases to clarify whether the Veteran's overpayment was properly created and if she should be granted a waiver of the debt. The issues are related to the validity and waiver of the $5,927.87 VRAP benefits overpayment.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals has remanded the case due to uncertainty regarding the Appellant's military service qualification for VA pension benefits. The AOJ must obtain a copy of any updated DD Form 214 or DD Form 215 from the appropriate sources and associate it with the claims file.

The Veteran's death was attributed to arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The Board has ordered the retrieval of his service personnel records and requested additional medical records from various providers, including Harper Hospital and Karmanos Cancer Center.

The Board has remanded the case due to conflicting opinions regarding whether the Veteran's mental health disorder is related to service. A new VA examination is needed to clarify this issue.

The Veteran's request for a waiver of an overpayment debt related to education benefits was denied because there was no indication of fraud, misrepresentation or bad faith on her part. The Board found that the creation of the debt resulted from both fault on the part of VA and the Veteran.

The Veteran's son is seeking accrued benefits in excess of $15,711.00 due to his father's death. The VA has granted the maximum amount ($15,711) that was owed at the time of the Veteran's death and no more.

The Board denied service connection for pulmonary fibrosis, finding that the evidence did not support a link between the condition and service, including presumed exposure to asbestos.