Other conditions decisions — 2020

The Veteran's service-connected hand injuries have rendered him unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation prior to December 17, 2012. The Board granted TDIU on an extraschedular basis effective July 31, 2003.

The Veteran's claim for compensation was denied as he is not entitled to a compensation payment for June 2014 due to the effective date of his award being July 1, 2014.

The Board denied service connection for a right hip disorder, finding that the Veteran's current condition is not related to his military service.

The Board denied the Appellant's claim for accrued benefits as untimely and failed to submit new and material evidence, thus denying her request for additional funds.

The Board has remanded the case due to a failure to provide proper VCAA notice and readjudication. The Veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of medical services received at St. Elizabeth Hospital in Youngstown, Ohio is being returned to the VAMC for further action.

The Board denied service connection for right and left hand muscle cramps, finding no evidence of a chronic condition in service or post-service continuity of symptoms.

The Veteran's appeal for TDIU was dismissed due to the death of the appellant, and no jurisdiction remains as a result.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a blood disorder, including leukemia, leukopenia, and myelodysplastic syndrome, finding no evidence of such disorders during or within one year after service. The Board also found no evidence linking these conditions to active service, including exposure to herbicide agents.

The Board has determined that a medical opinion is needed to determine whether the Veteran's cause of death (liver cancer) could be service connected, specifically due to herbicide exposure in Vietnam. The appellant contends that the Veteran was exposed to herbicides during his service and this exposure contributed to his liver cancer.

The Veteran's claims for an increased rating and TDIU are being remanded due to the need for additional development, including a VA examination.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient medical opinion regarding the relationship between the Veteran's pancreatic cancer and his presumed in-service exposure to herbicides, specifically Agent Orange. The appellant asserts that her husband's death may be related to service, including his presumed exposure to herbicides.

The Board denied a rating in excess of 30 percent for Barrett's esophagus, finding that the Veteran's condition was manifested by moderate stricture and not severe enough to warrant an 80% rating.

The Veteran's lower abdominal symptoms are not considered to be related to her military service, and the claim for service connection is denied.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's delusional disorder and unspecified personality disorder are not related to his military service, thus denying his claim for service connection.

The Veteran's claim for vocational rehabilitation and employment benefits, specifically education toward the pursuit of a career in social work, was denied as achievement of a vocational goal is not reasonably feasible due to his disabilities.

The Board has decided that the Veteran's service connection claim for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is remanded due to insufficient evidence and need for a VA examination.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient compliance with previous instructions regarding research at U-Tapao Royal Air Force Base. The Veteran's hairy cell leukemia claim is still pending and will be reconsidered based on new evidence.

The Board has decided that the Veteran's nonservice-connected pension benefits need to be reconsidered due to incomplete or erroneous evidence in his claims file.

The Board has decided that the appellant's claim for VA burial benefits is incomplete and requires further investigation. The AOJ must search their records to locate missing documents related to the appellant’s claims file, including his notice of disagreement and substantive appeal.

The Board has decided to remand the Veteran's claims for additional development due to inadequate opinions from VA examiners regarding whether his eye and lung conditions are related to VA care.