Other conditions decisions — 2020

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence and conflicting opinions regarding the Veteran's enzyme deficiency. The AOJ is required to obtain private treatment records from Mercy Hospital and provide a VA examination with an etiological opinion.

The Board has granted service connection for a skin rash, but has remanded the issue of service connection for a left rib contusion due to incomplete examination and opinion.

The Board has found that a remand is necessary to ensure the Veteran receives an adequate VA examination and opinion regarding his claimed right hand and left hand disabilities, as the previous examination was inadequate.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim of service connection for Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT). The matter is now remanded for further development, including a VA examination to determine if CMT had its onset during service or was aggravated by service.

The Veteran's TDIU claim is remanded due to its potential impact on the service connection and increased rating claims. The decision will be reconsidered in light of these related claims.

The Board has remanded the claims for a higher rating for excision of exostosis on both feet due to pending service connection claims.

The Veteran was not entitled to a retroactive payment for December 2012 as he received his full monthly benefits on time, with the December 31, 2012 payment being for the month of December.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a right foot disorder diagnosed as degenerative joint disease, finding that there was no evidence of a chronic condition during or within one year after service and that any current symptoms were more likely due to normal aging.

The Board has remanded the case due to a need for further action, including obtaining additional information from the Veteran regarding his income and net worth. The claim will be reconsidered after this is done.

The Board denied the claim for accrued benefits as there is no convincing proof that a claim was filed, and if it had been, the Veteran and appellant would have had until shortly after his death to file a request under the 'Special Claims Handling Procedures for Missing Documents'.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a right rotator cuff tear, finding that there is no evidence to support a link between his current condition and military service or any service-connected disability.

The Board denied service connection for lipomas and an enlarged prostate, finding that the evidence did not support a link to service or herbicide exposure.,Service connection was also denied for entitlement to TDIU due to the Veteran's receipt of a total rating.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for blindness right eye, with low vision left eye, old retinal detachment right eye, and maculopathy right eye as secondary to his service-connected diabetes mellitus type II. The March 2020 VA examiner found that the Veteran’s multiple severe eye conditions were not caused or aggravated by his service-connected diabetes.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for additional development, including obtaining VA treatment records and providing an addendum opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran's left shoulder condition.

The Veteran's cause of death is due to his exposure to hazardous chemicals and ionizing radiation during service, which the Board finds sufficient for direct service connection.

The Board has decided to remand the case for a VA medical opinion regarding whether the Veteran's right leg hematoma and nerve damage are related to or caused by his treatment at the VA, including any negligence on the part of the care team.

The Board has granted service connection for other specified trauma and stressor-related disorder and alcohol use disorder, and has denied a rating in excess of 20% for prostate cancer residuals since September 5, 2017.

The Board has remanded the case due to a lack of an ophthalmologist's opinion, and the Veteran needs another VA examination from an ophthalmologist.

The Veteran's appeal was dismissed due to their death, and no compensation is granted for the claimed condition.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to unclear rationale in the examiner's report, and requests a clarification on whether the Veteran’s LLE paresthesias is due to or worsened by his service-connected DM2.