Other conditions decisions — 2020

The Veteran's death certificate indicates he died in December 2018. The appellant submitted a claim for accrued benefits in January 2020, more than one year after the Veteran’s death. The Board found that the application was not timely filed and denied the accrued benefits claim.

The Veteran's stepdaughter was granted Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits under Chapter 35, Title 38 of the United States Code, starting from September 22, 2018. The decision is based on the appellant's request and VA's acknowledgment that she wanted to start her DEA benefits in September 2018.

The Board has granted the Veteran's claim for service connection for colon cancer due to herbicide exposure, specifically Agent Orange. The evidence supports a finding that his current diagnosis is at least as likely as not related to his in-service exposure.

The Board denied the appellant's appeal due to her substantive appeal being untimely filed, more than 60 days after the issuance of the SOC and over a year after the original rating decision.

The Board has remanded the case due to errors in duty to assist and for additional attempts to obtain missing service treatment records. The Veteran is also required to provide a VA medical opinion regarding his mental state at the time of his AWOL.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for an earlier effective date of October 22, 2019 for the grant of special monthly pension (SMP) for aid and attendance. The decision found that the formal claim was received more than one year after the intent to file a claim.

The Board has found that there was a pre-decisional duty to assist error due to the lack of a full copy of the informed consent document, and thus remanded for VA to obtain all records contained in VistA imaging, including a full copy of the informed consent from the May 2006 right eye surgery.

The Veteran's application for VET TEC educational benefits was denied because he had already exhausted his Chapter 33 education benefits and did not have any remaining entitlement in other VA educational programs. The Board recognized the unfortunate timing of events but could not grant the appeal as it is bound by the applicable law.

The Board has granted the Veteran's appeal, finding that an apportionment of his VA compensation benefits to S.P. for the benefit of N.B., the Veteran’s minor child, would cause undue hardship on him.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to a duty-to-assist error, specifically regarding the Veteran's contention that his overactive bladder (OAB) disability is related to service. The VA examiner must provide an addendum opinion addressing whether the OAB disorder had its onset in, was caused by, or is otherwise related to service.

The Board has determined that the VA examination is inadequate and remands the case for an addendum opinion to address whether the Veteran's atrial fibrillation was caused or aggravated by his service-connected diabetes mellitus type II.

The Veteran's unspecified trauma and stressor disorder is related to service, and the Board has granted service connection for this condition.

The appeal regarding the fiduciary appointment of N.W.I. was denied as there is no proper appeal of the January 2016 decision appointing her.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to a pre-decisional error in not attaching a financial status report, which is now unavailable. The AOJ needs to obtain a replacement or duplicate of this form.

The Board has decided that the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for a left foot disorder should be remanded due to a duty to assist error. The AOJ will attempt to obtain an opinion regarding whether any current left foot disability is related to service or another condition.

The Veteran's bicipital tendonitis of the right shoulder has not been manifested by limitation of motion to a degree that warrants an increased disability rating beyond the currently assigned 20 percent.

The Veteran's appeal for medical expense reimbursement is granted because the treatment was necessary due to a serious threat to his health and VA facilities were not feasibly available.

The Veteran's service-connected conditions alone caused him to be unable to find or maintain gainful employment as of February 26, 2003. The Board granted an earlier effective date for the TDIU benefit.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for atrial fibrillation, finding that there was no evidence of a heart disability in service and insufficient evidence to establish a nexus between current atrial fibrillation and service. The Board also found that there is no presumptive service connection based on exposure to herbicide agents during service in Vietnam.

The Board has decided that the character of the appellant's discharge from service is a bar to VA benefits, but needs more information and records to make a decision.