Other conditions decisions — 2021

The Veteran's service-connected impairment of rectal sphincter control precludes him from obtaining and maintaining substantially gainful employment.

The appellant does not have spina bifida and her mother is not a Vietnam Veteran, so the claim for benefits under 38 U.S.C. 1805 or 1815 for spina bifida is denied.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to jurisdictional issues and the need for adequate notice regarding payment of non-VA medical services provided on December 2, 2019.

Your appeal has been dismissed because the VA AOJ administratively approved your claim for payment of medical services provided from April 16, 2020 to April 30, 2020.

The Board has determined that the matter is not ripe for appellate review as all necessary development has not been completed. Specifically, the outcome of apportionment cases generally depends on the financial status of the parties and VA needs to obtain information from SSA regarding payments made since September 2019 to the Veteran concerning any disability award, including any offsets and payments related to support of the minor child A.F.

The Board has determined that the apportionment of the Veteran's VA disability compensation benefits in the amount of $227.00 per month awarded to A.G., on behalf of S.G., was proper, as the Veteran did not reasonably discharge his responsibility for supporting his minor child and A.G. demonstrated financial hardship.

The Veteran's stroke is not considered to be related to his military service, including exposure to herbicides like Agent Orange. The Board found insufficient evidence linking the stroke to service.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient notice provided by the AOJ and lack of jurisdictional authority.

The Board has found that there was a pending claim at the time of the Veteran's death upon which the appellant could request substitution and accrued benefits. The decision is remanded for readjudication considering her entitlement to additional veteran pension benefits for the liberalizing law period.

The Board denied the Veteran's request for waiver of recovery of overpayment of $14,200 due to duplicate payments of military retirement pay and VA disability compensation between April 2008 and April 2009. The decision found that recovery would not be against equity and good conscience.

The Veteran's ovarian disability was rated at the highest schedular rating allowable from April 12, 2016. The Board granted a 30 percent rating for her condition and denied an increased rating.

The Veteran's neurologic abnormalities and tremors are not considered to be caused or aggravated by his service-connected lumbar spine disability or any other service-connected condition. The bilateral arm disability is also not found to be related to active service.

The Board has remanded the claims for an abdominal aneurysm, left lower extremity aneurysm, right lower extremity aneurysm, and skin disability. The issues are now before the Board again due to additional development.

The Veteran requested to withdraw her appeal for chronic skin lesions, and the Board dismissed it.

The Board has determined that the appellant's character of discharge from service is a bar to VA compensation benefits, but remands for further examination and opinion regarding whether his behavior at the time of discharge was due to psychiatric disability or insanity.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's pulmonary melioidosis is service-connected, as it was incurred during his active military service.

The Board has granted service connection for flash burn scars as due to welding in service, but denied service connection for an eye disability, including blepharitis and vision issues, as due to welding in service.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to the need for additional development, including scheduling a VA examination.

The Veteran's bradycardia and AICD pacemaker are being remanded for further development, including obtaining SSA records and a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of these conditions.

The Veteran withdrew their appeal for medical expense reimbursement, and the Board dismissed the case as a result.