Other conditions decisions — 2020

The Veteran's death was not due to his own willful misconduct, and he did not meet the criteria for DIC under 38 U.S.C. § 1318.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's claims for initial compensable rating for venous insufficiency, service connection for prostatitis, bladder condition, and Barrett’s Esophagus are remanded due to inadequate examinations. The issues of TDIU are also inextricably intertwined with these claims.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for residuals of epiretinal membrane as due to radiation exposure and cold weather injuries were denied. The case was remanded for further review.

The claims for service connection for tonsil cancer, residuals of encephalitis, bilateral hearing loss disability, and tinnitus due to Camp Lejeune exposure are denied. The claim for service connection for esophagitis/esophageal dysphagia is not considered a new claim as it is related to the previously adjudicated tonsil cancer.

The Board denied the veteran's claim as his discharge was due to willful and persistent misconduct, not a minor offense. The character of his service is therefore barred from VA benefits.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's inguinal hernia is related to his service-connected pancreatic tumor surgery, and thus remands for an addendum opinion.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to a pre-decisional duty to assist error regarding the validity of the debt and whether it was properly created. The Veteran needs to provide verification of all drill days completed and pay received in FY 2017 and FY 2018, and an audit of compensation payments for those years.

The Veteran did not have any wartime service, so he does not meet the eligibility requirements for death pension benefits.

The Board denied the claim for service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death because there was no medical evidence showing the cause of death, and thus no basis to establish that it was due to service or a service-connected disability.

The Veteran's service does not qualify for NSC pension because it did not occur during a 'period of war' as defined by VA. The Veteran's spouse is also ineligible for SMP due to the Veteran still being alive.

The Board has decided that the Veteran is entitled to an extension of a temporary total rating for convalescence beyond the initial 6-month period already granted (from October 18, 2018 to April 30, 2019), but requires further development by the RO.

The Veteran's death prevented the claim from being processed, as there was no pending claim at the time of his death. The appellant is not eligible for substitution.

The Veteran's bilateral histoplasmosis is rated at 40 percent, the maximum schedular rating available for this condition.

The Board has denied the claim for DIC on the basis of entitlement to service connection for the cause of the Veteran’s death, and thus there is no longer a case or controversy pending before the Board.

The Board has remanded the case due to discrepancies in income and unreimbursed medical expenses provided by the Veteran. Clarification is needed from the Veteran regarding these details.

The Veteran's initial claim for a higher rating for his right pinky and right ring finger amputations was denied by the Board. The maximum schedular rating of 30 percent has been in effect since November 12, 2018.

The Board has previously denied the Veteran's claim of entitlement to SMC based on the need for regular aid and attendance. As a result, there remains no case or controversy over which the Board may exercise jurisdiction.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence and a need for further consideration, including a VA examination.

The Board dismissed the Veteran's claim for an effective date earlier than July 22, 2005 for special monthly compensation (SMC) because the appeal is pending with the Court.

The Board has remanded the case due to a lack of a Statement of the Case (SOC) for the claim of an increased apportionment amount. The appellant must file a substantive appeal in response to the SOC.