Other conditions decisions — 2020

The Board has granted the use of 2013 medical expenses submitted in January 2015 for calculating pension benefits, finding it to be timely and granting favorable consideration.

The Veteran's claims for financial assistance in purchasing an automobile, assistance with acquiring specially adapted housing, and SMC based on loss of a creative organ were denied as they are not periodic monetary benefits that can be paid to the appellant after the Veteran's death.

The Veteran's back condition, characterized by forward flexion limited to at most 40 degrees during flare-ups, does not meet the criteria for a higher rating.,For gastritis, the evidence shows recurring episodes of symptoms that are not severe occurring once per year with no more than one day of duration. This does not meet the criteria for a higher rating.

The Board dismissed the appeal because the Veteran, through his authorized representative, requested to withdraw the appeal regarding the effective date of dependent spouses and the validity of a debt created by that action.

The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate examination and failure to address all relevant evidence. The Veteran's neck disorder is related to service, but further examination is needed.

The Board has remanded the case due to a lack of recent VA treatment records, and the Veteran does not have current stimulant use disorder or alcohol use disorder for which service connection can be granted.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete records and a need for further examination. The Veteran's respiratory disorder is still under review.

The Board has granted service connection for squamous cell carcinoma keratoacanthoma type left lower arm, finding that the Veteran's current diagnosis is at least as likely as not related to his in-service exposure to herbicide agents.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need to obtain inpatient treatment records from November 1967 at the 13th Field Hospital in Saigon, Vietnam. The Appellant's claim for service connection for bilateral eye disabilities will be reconsidered after these records are obtained.

The Veteran's initial claim for a higher evaluation of her L5-S1 bulging disc with mild central spinal canal stenosis and narrowing inferior recess neural foramina was granted, but an evaluation in excess of 40 percent is denied. The Veteran's individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities is also denied.

Prior to June 7, 2019, the Veteran's RUE muscle rigidity was rated at 20 percent.,As of June 7, 2019, a rating of 30 percent for RUE muscle rigidity is granted.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings for right and left lower extremity neuralgia were denied as the evidence did not show symptoms or impairment characteristic of moderately severe incomplete paralysis of the sciatic nerve, warranting a rating in excess of 20 percent prior to December 17, 2019, and in excess of 40 percent from that date.

The appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's death, and no service connection issues were decided.

The Board has remanded the cases for additional development, including obtaining a VA opinion regarding whether the Veteran's topical treatment (clindamycin and metronidazole) constitutes 'systemic therapy such as corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive drugs.'

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claim for an initial compensable rating for right eye disorder (refractive error) due to unclear records and a need for addendum opinions regarding the onset of visual field defect.

The Veteran is competent to manage his own VA funds and handle the disbursement of funds, as he has demonstrated financial independence and competency.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient verification of the Appellant's active service and character of discharge. The case will be returned for further development.

The Veteran's claim for an increased disability evaluation for costochondritis is remanded due to the need for a new VA examination. His claim for total disability based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is also remanded as it has been reasonably raised by his testimony and treatment records.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to a failure to provide the appellant with a copy of the supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). The AOJ needs to verify the appellant's current address and send copies of the SSOC to her verified address.

The appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's death, and no jurisdiction remains for further action.