Other conditions decisions — 2020

The appeal of the denial of service connection for multiple myeloma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia is dismissed due to the Veteran's death.

The Veteran's discharge was due to a reduction in force, not a service-connected disability. Therefore, he is not eligible for the 100% benefit level under the Post-9/11 GI Bill.

Your appeal has been dismissed because your request for restoration of competency status for VA purposes has already been granted.

The Board dismissed the Veteran's claim for a waiver of a $260 medical debt at VAMC because there is no outstanding debt with VAMC.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal for reinstatement of TDIU, effective September 1, 2019.

The Veteran's fiduciary spouse appealed a decision denying the full waiver of an overpayment of VA pension benefits, arguing that the representative who filed the application for pension was at fault. The Board granted a partial waiver but denied the remainder due to the appellant's assertion of fraud and misrepresentation.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to a lack of adequate rationale in the VA examination regarding the Veteran's lung disability and its relation to service. The Veteran was exposed to various chemicals during his military service, including asbestos, but the examiner did not provide an opinion on this.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded due to pre-decisional duty-to-assist errors and the need for updated examinations and medical opinions regarding his bilateral dry eye syndrome and visual field defects.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for waiver of overpayment of VA education benefits due to her at least partial fault in creating the debt, and because repayment would not create undue hardship or defeat the purpose of the benefit.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's service-connected peptic ulcer disability did not prevent him from securing and maintaining substantially gainful employment, thus denying his claim for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability.

The Veteran's appeal concerning the propriety of the award of an apportionment of his monthly VA compensation benefits has been dismissed due to a withdrawal by the Veteran.

The Board found that the Veteran was not reasonably discharging his responsibility for supporting his child and granted an apportionment of $700 per month to cover child support and arrearages, effective May 1, 2019. The decision is binding only with respect to this specific matter.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal before the Board could make a decision, so the case is dismissed.

The Board has determined that the overpayment of $2,264.00 was not properly created due to VA's failure to inform the Veteran about the prohibition against concurrent receipt of dependents benefits while the dependent is receiving Chapter 35 DEA benefits. The appeal is granted as the debt is invalid and dismissal is warranted.

The Board has remanded the case due to concerns about the adequacy of a previous VA examination and the need for additional evidence, including an addendum opinion from the August 2013 examiner.

The Veteran's initial increased rating for first metacarpal left hand strain with pain is denied as his symptoms do not meet the criteria for a higher than 10 percent rating.,An initial compensable rating (10%) was granted for fifth metacarpal left hand strain with pain.

The Veteran's right and left 3rd cranial nerve palsy with symptoms of diplopia is considered a complication of his service-connected diabetes mellitus, but the evidence does not support a separate compensable rating for this condition.

The Veteran's right elbow disability has been rated at 10 percent, but the Board found that it does not meet or approximate the criteria for a higher rating. The evidence showed normal range of motion with no additional loss of function after repetitive use testing and no reports of flare-ups due to pain.

The Veteran's foot disability, including hammer toes and bilateral hallux valgus, is being remanded for further evaluation due to the need for an opinion on whether it is related to his service-connected bilateral pes planus.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete development, including a need for a VA skin examination or opinion. The claim will be reconsidered after this additional evidence is obtained.