Other conditions decisions — 2021

The Board has not issued a Statement of the Case (SOC) regarding whether the overpayment of compensation benefits in the amount of $7,813.81 due to change in dependency status was properly created and is therefore remanding this issue.

The Veteran's service-connected panic disorder without agoraphobia is rated at 50 percent prior to April 18, 2019 and at 70 percent thereafter. The Board denied a higher rating as the symptoms did not meet the criteria for a disability rating in excess of 50 percent prior to April 18, 2019.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for service connection for peripheral nerve disabilities of his right and left upper extremities due to a lack of consideration of diagnosed neurological conditions, including carpal tunnel syndrome.

The Board has decided that the Veteran's claim of service connection for a neck condition should be remanded due to inadequate medical opinion and need for further development.

The Board has restored a 10 percent rating for the Veteran's left thumb injury, finding that the reduction to noncompensable was improper due to lack of material improvement under ordinary conditions of life.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to incomplete information regarding the Veteran's drill pay and VA compensation received in Fiscal Year 2015. The RO needs to determine all relevant dates and amounts of pay, including active duty and drill days, to accurately calculate any overpayment.

The Board has granted service connection for a sleep disability, including UARS, finding that the Veteran's symptoms are related to his active duty service.

The Board has remanded the claim of entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to the Veteran not completing and returning the required VA Form 21-8940. The case is now referred to the Director of Compensation Services for extraschedular consideration.

The Veteran's claims for additional tuition and fees under the Post-9/11 GI Bill and more than 48 months of combined VA educational assistance benefits were denied as there is no legal basis to grant these claims.

The Board dismissed the appeal because the appellant withdrew it through his authorized representative before a decision was made.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to incomplete information regarding the medical expenses she seeks reimbursement for. The AOJ needs to obtain a list of claimed expenses, providers, and treatment dates from the Veteran and inform her about unsuccessful attempts to obtain records from Dr. C.

The Board dismissed the appeals on all issues due to the appellant's death.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to the need for clarification regarding whether the Veteran's cystic fibrosis is a congenital defect or disease, and if so, whether it was aggravated during service. The VA will obtain relevant medical records and arrange for an opinion from a VA examiner.

The Veteran's overpayment claim is being remanded for a detailed audit of compensation payments and adjustment of the overpayment amount.

The Board denied service connection for prostatitis as there is no current disability and the Veteran's in-service treatment resolved.

The Board has granted the Veteran's petition to reopen his claim for service connection for a perforated eardrum, but has remanded the case for further development.

The Veteran's children were removed from his VA benefits due to their receipt of educational assistance under Chapter 35, which is not allowed when they also receive a dependency allowance. The Board denied the appeal as a matter of law.

The Board has remanded the case due to a lack of consideration of whether the Veteran's use of topical medications constitutes systemic therapy, as required by Burton v. Wilkie.

The Board has vacated its decision and remanded the case due to procedural violations in handling a simultaneously contested claim involving DIC benefits for the Veteran's first spouse, J.S., and her son, S.S. The claims file does not indicate that D.S. was provided with the contents of the appellant’s substantive appeal or hearing transcript, which deprived her of her right to meaningful participation in the adjudication process.

The Veteran's chronic back pain with Scheuermann’s Disease was granted an increased evaluation of 20 percent for the period prior to May 15, 2013.