Other conditions decisions — 2019

The Board denied service connection for peripheral vascular disease of the bilateral lower extremities, finding that there was no evidence linking the condition to service. The Veteran's records did not indicate any evidence of PVD during or soon after his service.

The Board has remanded the cases due to a need for further examination and review of medical records.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded for a new examination to determine the current level of severity of his right ear hearing loss.

The Board has reopened the claim of service connection for Crohn's disease and remanded it for further development, including a VA examination.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals found that the Appellant cannot be recognized as the Veteran's surviving spouse for VA purposes due to lack of legal marriage and holding themselves out as husband and wife.

The Board has identified new evidence that was not previously considered and has requested the AOJ to review this evidence before making a decision on the claim.

The Veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of non-VA medical care provided from March 15 to March 19, 2015 was denied because the treatment did not meet the eligibility criteria under VA regulations and he had not received medical services under authority of 38 U.S.C. Chapter 17 within the 24-month period preceding the furnishing of such non-VA treatment.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded due to the need for additional medical records and lay statements supporting their claim of competency to handle VA funds.

The Board has decided to remand the issue of whether the overpayment of $1,755.87 was properly created due to a dispute about its validity.

The Board has determined that additional development is needed for the Veteran's claims of neck condition, sleep disorder, and skin condition. The claims are being remanded to allow for further examination and consideration.

The claim for service connection for callus, right foot is being remanded due to the need for a VA examination and an etiological opinion.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for congestive heart failure, finding that there was no link between his current condition and his military service or a service-connected disability.

The Veteran received emergency medical treatment at SRMC for shortness of breath and productive cough. The Board granted payment or reimbursement as the treatment was deemed necessary due to delay in seeking immediate medical attention, which would have been hazardous to health, and no VA facility was feasibly available.

The Board denied the Veteran's petitions to reopen his previously denied claims for service connection for residuals of a back injury and psychoneurosis, conversion hysteria. The appeals were dismissed as new and material evidence was not presented.

The Veteran's claim for non-service connected pension benefits during his incarceration is denied because he was not entitled to these benefits while incarcerated.

The Board is remanding the case to determine if the overpayment of VA dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) benefits was properly created, including considering whether it was due to a sole administrative error.

The Board has determined that a new examination is needed to assess the current severity of the Veteran's right index finger, right ring finger and right small finger disabilities due to their substantial impact on his claim for an increased disability rating for residual nerve damage of the right hand. The issues are being remanded.

The Veteran's unauthorized medical expenses incurred at Bingham Memorial Hospital from October 14 to October 18, 2010 are granted for payment by VA.

The Board has remanded the case for further development regarding the validity of the overpayment and to consider the waiver request. The Veteran must be provided a detailed audit explaining how the overpayment was created.

The Veteran's claim for special monthly pension prior to March 27, 2018 based on the need for regular aid and attendance or by reason of being permanently housebound was denied as his disabilities did not render him in need of such assistance.