Other conditions decisions — 2020

The Board has denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, finding that there is no evidence to support a link between his current condition and his active duty service.

The Veteran's claim for a higher rating for muscle injury from laceration of the left forearm with involvement of Muscle Groups (MG) VIII and IX was granted, but not in excess of 20 percent. The disability most nearly approximates moderately severe muscle impairment.

The Board has remanded the cases due to insufficient opinions regarding the relationship between the Veteran's metastatic salivary duct carcinoma and his service-connected diabetes mellitus, as well as the potential aggravation of the condition by his service-connected disabilities. The claims for periodontal disease are also inextricably intertwined with the claim for metastatic salivary duct carcinoma.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to inadequate examination and will provide a new one for an increased rating of the Veteran's service-connected left leg disability.

The Board has remanded the case for further development and readjudication due to issues related to a total disability evaluation based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for service connection for chronic urticaria, finding that his condition clearly and unmistakably preexisted his period of active duty service and was not aggravated during service.

The Board denied service connection for an eye condition, finding that the Veteran's current eye conditions are unrelated to his military service and not related to any in-service events or injuries.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's TMJ disorder had its onset during service and is related to his service, granting service connection for this condition.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for Montgomery GI Bill (Chapter 30) education benefits for on-the-job training with US Customs and Border Protection from September 17, 2008 to September 18, 2009 due to a lack of timely application.

The Board has decided that another remand is necessary to assess the severity of the Veteran's urethra stricture disability, as it was not adequately addressed in previous evaluations.

The Board has granted service connection for the Veteran's Raynaud’s disease, finding that it is at least as likely as not caused by her service-connected systemic lupus erythematosus.

The Veteran's lymphomatoid papulosis is granted as service connected due to presumed exposure to Agent Orange during his Vietnam service.

The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate reasons for denying service connection for bilateral lower extremity pain. The Veteran's claim is being returned for further proceedings, including obtaining medical opinions and SSA records.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection of a left eye disorder, finding that his pre-existing condition did not worsen during service and was due to genetic factors.

The Board denied service connection for cerebral aneurysms, finding that the Veteran's condition was not shown in service or until many years after discharge. The VA examiner concluded that the cerebral aneurysms are less likely than not related to active service, including a motor vehicle accident during service.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for anemia, finding no current diagnosis and insufficient evidence to establish a link between his active duty service and his claimed condition.

The Board dismissed the appeal because the appellant requested to withdraw their appeal prior to a decision being made.

The Veteran's overpayment of VA pension benefits is waived due to the principles of equity and good conscience, despite fault on his part. The decision grants the waiver request.

The Veteran's claim for special monthly compensation (SMC) based on the need for aid and attendance was denied because he failed to appear for a scheduled VA examination without providing good cause.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to missing documents and incomplete information, particularly regarding the validity of the appellant's claim as the Veteran's surviving spouse for VA death benefits purposes. The AOJ is instructed to ensure all relevant records are obtained and reviewed.