Other conditions decisions — 2019

The Veteran's claim of eligibility for assistance in acquiring specially adapted housing is being remanded due to the addition of new evidence. The case will be reviewed by the AOJ and a Supplemental Statement of the Case will be issued.

The Board has decided that the Veteran's claim for service connection of a left eye disability, to include diplopia, must be remanded due to insufficient evidence and incomplete medical records.

The Veteran's photophobia does not result in active objective findings such as red, thick conjunctivae, mucous secretion; or field of vision impairment, visual acuity impairment, or incapacitating episodes. Therefore, the claim for an initial compensable rating for photophobia is denied.

The Board has determined that the Appellant's net worth and income are not a bar to payment of survivors’ (death) pension benefits, which constitutes a full grant of the issue on appeal.

The Board has granted an effective date of October 24, 2012 for the award of special monthly pension for aid and attendance based on a formal application received by VA in November 2012.

The Veteran's appeal for payment or reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses incurred during two non-VA hospitalizations has been dismissed as the appellant withdrew his appeal.

The Board has restored a 20 percent disability rating for the veteran's service-connected bilateral dry eyes, effective from the date of reduction.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the Veteran's skin condition, including exposure to herbicidal agents and service connection.

The Veteran's blindness is being remanded for further review due to concerns about informed consent and the risk of legal blindness.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal, and the Board has dismissed it.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for loss of vision and residuals of head trauma, finding no evidence of a current disability or a link to service.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for service connection for respiratory and skin disabilities, both potentially related to herbicide agent exposure during service in Vietnam. The VA will seek additional medical records and schedule a VA examination to determine if any diagnosed conditions are related to service or herbicide exposure.

The Board has decided that the claims file does not contain all necessary records, specifically a claim for payment or reimbursement and a decision denying the claim. The case is being remanded to obtain these missing records.

The Board denied service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death, finding that there was no evidence linking any current disability to service and determining that the Veteran's death was not caused by a service-connected condition.,The claim is remanded due to an issue regarding the appellant's eligibility as the deceased Veteran's surviving spouse for VA death pension benefits.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to inadequate medical opinions regarding his right hand disability and chronic urticaria. The Board requests additional examinations and opinions to clarify the nature of these conditions and their relationship to service connection.

The Board denied service connection for aphakia, left eye with defective vision due to a failure to apply the correct legal regulations at the time. The denial of service connection for left eye cataract is not addressed in this decision.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's claims for increased ratings and a total disability rating based on individual unemployability are remanded due to the need for additional examinations and consideration of his right talus fracture residuals.

The Board denied an increased rating for the Veteran's intervertebral disc syndrome, finding that his forward flexion was at 40 degrees and he did not experience any incapacitating episodes during the past year. The criteria for a higher rating were not met.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for an increased rating and TDIU due to incomplete consideration of all applicable diagnostic codes and failure to issue a supplemental statement of the case.

The Veteran is seeking a compensable rating for his service-connected chest pain, but asserts that there was CUE in the April 2010 rating decision. He believes he should have been rated under a respiratory or cardiovascular diagnostic code instead of a musculoskeletal one.