Other conditions decisions — 2021

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for a bladder disability, including as due to her service-connected PTSD. The case is being returned to the AOJ for further development and consideration.

The Board found that the appellant was insane at the time of misconduct leading to his discharge, thus lifting the regulatory bar preventing him from receiving VA benefits.

The Board denied service connection for an acquired vision defect and polyps, finding that the Veteran did not have a current diagnosis of these conditions related to his military service.

The Board has granted service connection for right lower extremity meralgia paresthetica as secondary to the Veteran's service-connected coronary artery disease. The claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for a groin injury following cardiac catherization is dismissed.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings and TDIU have been remanded due to inadequate examinations in the previous appeals. The Veteran is also not currently entitled to a TDIU, but may be eligible upon future grant of an increased rating.

The Board has determined that the VA medical opinion provided was inadequate and remands the case for further development, including obtaining a new VA medical opinion to address the Veteran's claims regarding his prostate disorder.

The Board dismissed the claim because both the Veteran and his wife died during the appeal process, making it moot.

The Veteran's service-connected PTSD is rated at 70% from June 4, 2018. The Veteran also received a TDIU effective June 4, 2018.

The Board has found that the Veteran's testimony raises a claim for service connection of a right upper extremity disability as secondary to his service-connected right hand strain. The case is being remanded to obtain updated VA examinations and opinions regarding the nature, severity, and etiology of both the right hand strain and any related right upper extremity disabilities.

The Board has ordered the case to be remanded due to procedural issues with the representation of the Veteran. The Veteran's representative was not provided with a copy of the March 2021 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) and the September 22, 2020 letter.

The Board has remanded the claim for a left hand injury, finding insufficient evidence to resolve the issue. The Veteran's STRs must be considered again and an opinion on direct and secondary service connection is needed.

The Veteran's appeals have been withdrawn due to his request, and the Board has dismissed them.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient evidence regarding whether the Veteran's skin condition, including chronic pruritis, is related to his exposure to herbicide agents during service.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a respiratory disability due to asbestos exposure, finding that there was no medical evidence linking his current respiratory disabilities to his military service.

The Board has determined that there has not been substantial compliance with the previous remand and requires further development for the Veteran's claim of service connection for a bilateral eye disability.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for emphysema and a skin disability, finding that there is no evidence linking these conditions to his military service or exposure to herbicide agents.

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

The Board has denied the Veteran's claim for TDIU, but the Court has ordered a remand due to an alleged failure of the RO to address a request for a 30-day extension of time to respond to a Supplemental Statement of the Case.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for a neck condition and esophageal condition due to inadequate opinions regarding their etiology. The Veteran was not provided with adequate VA examinations or medical opinions that addressed his service connection claims.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a skin disorder, finding that his condition did not originate in service and is not otherwise etiologically related to service. The evidence showed no complaints or findings of a skin disorder during service, with the first documented complaint appearing more than 36 years after separation from active duty.