Other conditions decisions — 2020

The Veteran withdrew their appeal before the Board could make a decision, so the case is dismissed.

The Board denied a schedular rating in excess of 10 percent for the Veteran's pelvic disability, finding that her hip flexion and abduction did not meet criteria for higher ratings due to functional loss. The Veteran retains pain but does not have ankylosis or other disabling conditions.

The Board has remanded the claim for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities as the Veteran did not complete the required VA Form 21-8940, which is necessary to assess his eligibility for TDIU.

The Veteran's aerophagia with irritability of the colon is rated at a 30 percent disability rating, which is the maximum allowed under the applicable rating criteria.

The Board denied service connection for cholangiocarcinoma, finding that the Veteran's condition is not related to his military service or exposure to herbicide agents.

The Board has remanded the issue of whether the appellant's discharge from service is a bar to VA benefits due to incomplete personnel records. The case will be reviewed again with additional searches for relevant documents.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to outstanding VA and private medical records that need to be obtained. The Veteran's left eye disability is being reviewed for compensation under Section 1151 of the U.S.C.

The Veteran's claims for hypertension service connection and a rating in excess of 30 percent for right eye conjunctivitis with keratoconus from February 1, 2018 are remanded due to the need for additional medical opinions.

The Veteran's appeal for service connection for a disability manifested by weakness, fatigability, and irritability has been withdrawn. The issue is no longer in appellate status as the claim was reopened on new evidence.

The Veteran's claim for payment of non-VA medical expenses incurred on June 6, 2017 was denied because the treatment was not pre-authorized and was not emergent. The AOJ is instructed to obtain necessary documentation from the provider to determine what payor was billed and whether any correction in billing was made.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for shortness of breath is being remanded due to a duty to assist error. The AOJ should clarify if the Veteran has a current respiratory disability and determine its relationship to her active duty service.

The Board dismissed the appeal for payment of medical services provided by the appellant to the Veteran on September 9, 2019, and September 16, 2019, as there was no case in controversy due to the payment being considered full.

The Board has granted an earlier effective date of October 29, 2012 for the award of DIC benefits due to a timely informal claim filed by the appellant's attorney on that date.

The Veteran's VA disability compensation benefits were reduced to recoup military drill pay for 40 days in FY 2017, which was not legally permissible due to concurrent receipt of active service pay. The appeal is denied.

The Board has granted the veteran's surviving spouse special monthly pension (SMP) for a need of regular aid and attendance, as her medical conditions have rendered her in need of such assistance.

The Veteran's request for a waiver of overpayment was timely filed, and the appeal is granted.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to incomplete records and procedural issues related to the overpayment of housing allowance. The Veteran's challenges include whether the overpayment was created properly, and what its correct amount should be.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for right and left foot conditions, finding that there is no evidence of in-service injury or disease related to these conditions.

The Veteran is granted payment of non-service-connected disability pension with special monthly pension based on the need for aid and attendance as of January 1, 2020.

The Board denied DIC benefits as the surviving spouse because the Appellant was divorced from the Veteran in 1972 and did not remarry him, thus preventing her from being considered his surviving spouse.