Other conditions decisions — 2020

The Board has remanded the cases due to an incomplete mailing address for the appellant. The AOJ needs to make additional attempts to contact her and send copies of relevant documents to the most current known address.

The Board has decided that the Veteran's attorney fees claim should be remanded to ensure full compliance with contested claims procedures, including notifying the Veteran and providing a copy of the Statement of the Case and substantive appeal.

The Board has remanded the cases of service connection for dementia and cerebrovascular accident (CVA) due to presumed exposure to herbicide agents. The VA examinations requested in January 2019 have not been provided, and new examinations are required.

The Veteran is requesting a review of the compensation paid for dependents H.B., C.S., and E.S. from January 2013 to March 2015, as he believes he was not correctly paid.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient medical opinion regarding the Veteran's respiratory disorder and its relation to service, particularly his in-service exposure to jet engine fumes, solvents, oils, hydraulic fluids, and fuel.

The overpayment of $2,577.00 was created due to the Veteran's failure to notify VA of his divorce from his spouse and continued receiving dependent benefits for her after their separation.

The Veteran's left knee disability is rated at 10 percent since July 23, 2012. The Board has remanded the case for further development and adjudication.

The Veteran's death during the appeal process means that the Board has no jurisdiction to decide the merits of his claim for special monthly death pension by reason of needing aid and attendance, so the case is dismissed.

The Board has remanded the cases for additional development due to insufficient medical opinions regarding the etiology of the Veteran's neck and back injuries.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to inadequate medical opinions and the need to address the Veteran's lay statements regarding his stomach symptoms.

The Veteran's service-connected left hip disabilities have increased in severity since the last examination, and he is required to undergo a VA examination to determine their current severity.

The Board has granted service connection for atelectasis, finding that the Veteran's respiratory disorder is related to his military service and exposure to burn pits. The decision also notes conflicting evidence regarding chronic hypoxia but finds it not connected to service.

The Veteran's spinal cord injury and related issues, including loss of sensation from neck down, loss of temperature, loss of genital sensation, left upper extremity weakness, pain, and spasticity, and right upper extremity weakness, were caused by VA medical treatment. The event was not reasonably foreseeable.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for diverticulitis and remanded the issue of service connection for a gastrointestinal disorder (other than sliding hiatal hernia and diverticulitis).

The Veteran's initial rating for insomnia was increased to 30 percent effective November 6, 2019. Prior to this date, the Veteran had a 10 percent rating.

The Board dismissed the appeal because the appellant requested to withdraw it before a decision was made.

The Board denied service connection for a dental disability for compensation purposes, finding no evidence of loss of substance of the body of the maxilla or mandible due to in-service trauma or bone disease. Service connection was granted for outpatient treatment purposes.,For TDIU prior to December 31, 2002, the Board found that while the Veteran had multiple service-connected disabilities, none met the schedular requirements for a TDIU.

The Board denied the Veteran's request for an apportionment of his VA compensation benefits, finding that it would cause undue hardship to him and thus not meet the requirements for a special or general apportionment.

The Board denied an increase in the amount of apportionment of the Veteran's VA compensation benefits to the appellant, finding that it would result in undue hardship on the Veteran.

The Veteran seeks to reenter a VR&E program for additional education and employment. The Board finds an additional functional capacity evaluation is needed due to the significant amount of time that has passed since his last review.