Other conditions decisions — 2021

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient discussion of potential causes for the detached retina, including caustic paint, steam, or being hit with a valve during service.

The Board has decided that the Veteran's TDIU claim is remanded due to outstanding SSA records. The case will be returned for further action.

The Board has remanded the case due to a lack of divorce records from Florida, where the Veteran lived at the time of his remarriage. The Appellant must provide any available divorce records or face further proceedings.

The Veteran's bowel obstruction disability is currently rated at 10 percent, and the Board has decided to remand for further examination to determine its current severity.

The Board has restored the 30 percent rating for endometriosis and remanded the issues of a rating in excess of 10 percent for endometriosis, entitlement to a TDIU, and a rating in excess of 10 percent for low back disability.

The Board found that the reduction in compensation benefits due to incarceration for a felony was improper as the Veteran had not been convicted of a felony, and thus restoration of compensation payments is granted.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient examination and consideration of the Veteran's lay statements regarding his toenail condition.

The appeal was dismissed due to the death of the appellant.

The Veteran requested to withdraw his appeal for a total disability evaluation based on individual unemployability (TDIU) before the Board made a decision. The Board dismissed the appeal as a result.

The Veteran's appeal was dismissed due to his death, and the Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this case.

The Veteran's constipation is granted as secondary to medications used to treat his service-connected lumbar spine degenerative arthritis. The need for regular aid and attendance due to service-connected disabilities is remanded.

The Board has granted service connection for respiratory disability, diagnosed as interstitial lung disease, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, pulmonary fibrosis, and pleural plaques associated with asbestos exposure. The decision is based on the Veteran's reported symptoms during service and post-service, along with VA examination reports.

The Veteran's appeal for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for osteomyelitis in the left hand has been withdrawn and is dismissed.

The Board has remanded the claims for service connection for multiple sebaceous cysts and dental extractions for VA outpatient treatment purposes due to incomplete development. The Veteran needs additional examination and opinion regarding his skin condition, including a review of his medication list.

The Board has decided to remand the Veteran's claims for increased ratings for right Achilles tendon tear and left hamstring tear due to additional evidence received since the May 2021 Supplemental Statement of the Case.

The Board has decided to remand the claims for service connection of right and left foot DJD due to insufficient evidence in the record regarding the etiology of the Veteran's current bilateral foot arthritis.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to inadequate examination and failure of duty to assist, specifically regarding the causal relationship between the Veteran's restless leg syndrome and his service-connected PTSD or exposure in Southwest Asia during the Persian Gulf War.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient medical opinions regarding whether the Veteran's amyloid angiopathy was aggravated by his use of medications for service-connected conditions, and if so, whether this constitutes a new disability that could be compensated under 38 U.S.C. § 1151.

The Board has granted service connection for impairment of rectal sphincter control on a direct basis, finding that the Veteran's condition is at least as likely as not related to his in-service surgeries.

The Veteran's surviving spouse was receiving death pension benefits at the time of her death in January 2019. The Appellant, as the fiduciary of the surviving spouse, agreed to reduce the pension payments. There were no accrued benefits due to the surviving spouse beyond those already paid.