Other conditions decisions — 2020

The Board has granted an apportionment of $350.00 per month on behalf of the appellant, B.G., and C.G. from March 28, 2013, to March 27, 2014, due to the Veteran's failure to reasonably discharge his responsibility for their support.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal, so the case is dismissed.

The Board denied service connection for left and right foot disorders, finding that the current disorders are not causally related to service.

The Board has decided to remand the Veteran's claim for service connection for a right leg condition due to insufficient explanation in the VA examiner's opinion regarding the etiology of the condition. The case is being sent back for further development and an updated medical opinion.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to inadequate examination and incomplete medical evidence, requiring a new VA examination to assess the Veteran's cardiovascular disability related to in-service Agent Orange exposure.

The Veteran's respiratory disability, characterized by adenosquamous cell carcinoma of the lung post-lobectomy right lung, was rated at 10 percent prior to January 6, 2020 and at 60 percent thereafter. The Board found that the evidence did not meet the criteria for an increased rating exceeding these levels.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient medical opinions regarding the etiology of the Veteran's bilateral eye disorders, which are currently considered service-connected under a direct theory.

The Veteran's squamous cell carcinoma was not incurred or aggravated during service and is unrelated to herbicide exposure. The Board denied the claim as there is insufficient competent and probative evidence linking the condition to service.

The Board dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's death, as they have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this case.

The Board has found that the previous VA medical opinions were inadequate and requires a new examination to determine if the Veteran's current eye disabilities are related to service.

The Board has decided that further development is needed to determine if the Veteran's right hip disability is related to his active service, and thus remands the case for a VA examination.

The Board dismissed the claim for service connection of vascular dementia due to the death of the appellant.

The Board has remanded the case due to a lack of notification of a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) provided to the Veteran. The SSOC addressed new financial evidence submitted by both parties.

The Veteran's daughter filed a claim for accrued benefits, including special monthly pension (SMP) based on the need for aid and attendance. The effective date of this grant is denied as February 18, 2019 is the earliest possible date under relevant laws and regulations.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for nonservice-connected pension benefits as his service did not qualify under the criteria for Vietnam-era veterans, and thus he was not eligible for these benefits.

The Board has granted the Veteran's claim for service connection for acrophobia and gephyrophobia, finding that these conditions are related to his military experiences.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claims for compensable initial ratings for his right inguinal hernia and surgical repair scar, but has remanded the issue of service connection for benign prostatic hypertrophy due to in-service exposure to herbicides. The case is now pending further development.

The Veteran's heart disability, including bradycardia, left axis deviation, and premature ventricular contractions (PVCs), was not incurred in or aggravated by service. The Board found that the preponderance of evidence does not support a link between the current heart disability and service exposure to herbicide agents.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to a failure to associate the Veteran's complete Veterans Health Administration (VHA) claims file with the electronic record, including VA treatment records and medical bills. The AOJ must reconstruct this file and provide it to the Board for further review.

The Board dismissed the appeal as the appellant requested withdrawal of the appeal in October 2019.