Other conditions decisions — 2019

The Veteran's claim for service connection for a disability of the nose is reopened and remanded due to new evidence. The left shoulder disability rating is also remanded.

The Board dismissed the appeal as the appellant does not have standing to pursue the accrued benefits claim due to lack of eligibility under VA regulations.

The Board found that the overpayment of Chapter 33 (Post-9/11 GI Bill) educational assistance benefits was valid and denied the Veteran's claim.

The Board denied the reopening of the claim regarding the character of discharge as a bar to compensation benefits due to lack of new and material evidence, despite the appellant's assertions.

The Veteran's surviving spouse seeks an earlier effective date for the grant of survivor’s pension benefits with aid and attendance. The Board finds that March 28, 2016 is the earliest possible (and appropriate) effective date for the award of such benefits.

The Board has remanded the case due to procedural issues and for development related to herbicide agent exposure in Okinawa, Japan. The Veteran's claim for service connection for adenocarcinoma of the prostate with urinary stress incontinence is being reconsidered.

The Veteran's appeal is denied as he does not meet the criteria for education benefits under Chapter 33 (Post-9/11 GI Bill) in excess of the 90 percent rate due to his service not meeting the required length or discharge conditions.

The Board has decided to remand the cases due to insufficient evidence regarding service connection for RSD and because of the inextricably intertwined issue of TDIU. The Veteran needs a VA examination to determine if he has a current disability related to his claimed RSD, and whether it is related to his military service.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to missing documents and procedural issues, including a lack of evidence regarding the creation of overpayments and the timeliness of the waiver request.

The Board cannot make a fully-informed decision on the issue of entitlement to service connection for hammertoes because no VA examiner has opined whether the Veteran has a diagnosis of hammertoes, and if so, whether such diagnosis is related to service. The matter is REMANDED for an examination by an appropriate clinician.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for recognition of her son, P.O., as a helpless child of the deceased Veteran on the basis of permanent incapacity for self-support prior to attaining the age of 18 years. The evidence did not show that P.O. was permanently incapable of self-support by reason of physical or mental defects at the time he turned 18.

The Veteran's bilateral hallux valgus is caused or permanently aggravated by her service-connected bilateral plantar fasciitis and pes planus.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for colon cancer secondary to asbestos exposure, finding that there was no evidence linking his current condition to his in-service exposure.

The Veteran's appeals have been dismissed due to their death. The Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of these claims.

The Veteran and the appellant were divorced at the time of his death, thus they did not have a valid marriage. The Board denied the claim for recognition as the surviving spouse due to lack of a valid marriage.

The Veteran is seeking a waiver of an overpayment of education benefits. The case needs to be remanded for the issuance of a Statement of the Case addressing the validity of the overpayment and entitlement to a waiver.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal before the Board could make a decision.

The Veteran's unauthorized medical expenses at Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital on January 13, 2014 are reimbursed as the care was deemed necessary due to an emergency and a VA facility was not feasibly available.

The Veteran's appeal regarding the apportionment of his VA disability compensation benefits granted on behalf of his daughters, S.S. and T.S., has been dismissed due to their withdrawal.

The Veteran's appeal regarding the apportionment of his VA disability compensation benefits on behalf of his daughters, A.J. and I.J., is denied as the evidence does not establish undue hardship to the Veteran.