Other conditions decisions — 2021

The Board has remanded the case due to the complexity of the disability and the need for an advisory medical opinion regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s claimed conditions in service, specifically whether the current disability existed prior to service, was it aggravated by service, and is the current disability related to service.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, specifically schizoaffective disorder, depressed type, has been granted. The Board also found that new and material evidence had been received to reopen the previously denied claim of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. However, the issue regarding a higher evaluation for perirectal abscess remains pending as there are no VA examination reports available.

The Veteran's initial increased disability ratings for keloids were granted, with specific ratings assigned based on the severity of his symptoms and the areas affected. The Veteran received a 30 percent rating for painful scars from December 30, 2009 to August 15, 2013, and another 30 percent rating from November 13, 2017. A separate 10 percent rating was granted for scars of the head, face or neck from August 15, 2013 to November 13, 2017.

The Veteran's appeal for a TDIU rating is dismissed because he failed to provide requested information needed to properly adjudicate the claim.

The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate development of evidence, specifically a lack of an adequate VA medical opinion. The Veteran's prostate condition claim is being returned for further development.

The Veteran requested withdrawal of his appeal regarding the addition of his former spouse, M.H., as a dependent. The Board dismissed the appeal due to the Veteran's request for withdrawal.

The Board has decided that the Veteran's chronic eye disabilities may have existed prior to service and were not clearly and unmistakably aggravated by service. The case is being remanded for further examination and opinion regarding these issues.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL), finding that no legal basis existed for such a determination and that the preponderance of evidence was against the claim.

The appeal seeking compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for residuals of a myocardial infarction is dismissed due to the appellant's death.

The Veteran's claim for a rating in excess of 10 percent for epididymitis with bilateral epididymal cysts and TDIU due to service-connected disabilities has been denied. The Board found that the evidence did not support a higher rating for his service-connected conditions, as they did not meet the criteria for a 30 percent rating under DC 7525.

The Board has granted a TDIU rating and SMC under 38 C.F.R. § 1114(s) prior to September 7, 2018. The right arm gunshot wound residuals claim is remanded for further clarification of the neurological component.

The Veteran's bladder disability, which includes BPH and bladder urolithiasis, is rated at 40 percent. The Board found that the predominant area of dysfunction was due to BPH, leading to a single 40 percent rating for bladder disability.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to a duty-to-assist error in the January 2018 VA medical opinion, and for further examination.

The Board has remanded the case due to new evidence received since the last final denial, which raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim for service connection for liver cancer. The Veteran's testimony indicates that his liver cancer may be related to an in-service appendectomy.

The Board denied the claim for an earlier effective date for service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death, finding that no earlier effective date can be assigned as a matter of law due to the appellant filing her initial claim on July 20, 2012.

The Veteran's recurrent hidradenitis of the perineal, vulvar, and rectal areas is currently rated at 10 percent. The Board denied a higher rating as it did not meet the criteria for a higher rating under DC 7806 due to less than 20% body or exposed area affected.

The Board has remanded the case due to conflicting medical evidence regarding whether the Veteran experienced severe memory loss following ECT treatment and if VA provided proper informed consent. A VA examiner is needed to address these issues.

The Board denied the appellant's request for an apportionment of the Veteran's VA compensation benefits because the Veteran was providing financial support to the appellant, and her income exceeded her expenses.

The Board has remanded the case due to non-compliance with previous directives and needs further medical opinions regarding the Veteran's knee disabilities, specifically chondromalacia patella and Osgood-Schlatter disease.

The Veteran's daughter, the appellant, is denied accrued benefits in excess of $2,189.44 due to insufficient evidence of expenses related to her father's last illness.