Other conditions decisions — 2021

The Board denied the Veteran's claim of service connection for a bilateral eye disability, finding that there was no evidence of a superimposed injury or aggravation beyond the natural progression of his refractive error. The preponderance of the evidence did not support a nexus between the current condition and service.

The Board has remanded the case due to procedural issues and for further development regarding SSA income information, educational status of children J.R. and C.R., and compliance with contested claims procedures.

The Veteran withdrew their appeal regarding the issue of whether an overpayment of VA benefits based on counting SSA income was properly created.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for a heart murmur and Type I Arnold Chiari malformation, finding that there is no nexus between these conditions and his military service.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for a psychiatric disorder has been dismissed due to his death during the appeal process.

The Board dismissed the appeal because the appellant requested to withdraw it.

The Board has remanded the case due to concerns raised in a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) regarding missing treatment records and the appellant's claim of exposure to Agent Orange. The VA is required to obtain additional medical records, including those from the Greenville, South Carolina, VA Medical Center, and any other relevant private or VA records. Additionally, the service department must verify if the Veteran stepped foot in Vietnam while stationed in Thailand.

The appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's death. The Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this case as it is now.

The Board found that the termination of VA pension benefits due to excessive income, effective July 1, 2009, and the creation of an overpayment of $74,497.00 were proper, as the Veteran did not provide timely notification of his SSA income.

The Board dismissed the issue of whether the Veteran is competent to handle and distribute funds as it has already been resolved in their favor with a grant of benefits.

The Board has decided to remand the case for a VA medical opinion regarding whether the Veteran experienced additional disability of the right eye due to the June 2008 surgery, and if so, whether it was caused by carelessness, negligence, or other fault on the part of VA.

The Veteran's right thumb disability, which has been rated at 10 percent since April 2015, is denied a higher rating as there was no evidence of limitation of motion resulting in more than two inches gap between the thumb pad and fingers during examination.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding whether the Veteran's Crohn's disease is related to his active duty service, including abdominal pain and bowel changes noted in his service medical records. The VA examiner must provide opinions on both direct service connection and secondary service connection for the Veteran's Crohn's disease.

The Board has remanded the claims for service connection for bilateral cataracts and a vision condition (claimed as eyeglasses and both eyes burning and/or running water) due to inadequate nexus opinions in the previous VA examinations.

The Veteran's exposure to herbicide agents at the Korat RTAFB during his service in Thailand is conceded, and the appellant, who was born with spina bifida after her father's service, is granted a monetary allowance under 38 U.S.C. § 1805.

The Veteran's effective date for VA disability compensation based on additional allowance for his dependent spouse is granted to August 21, 2013.

The Board has dismissed the claim for payment or reimbursement of medical services provided on December 7, 2020 due to a prior decision. The appeal regarding payment or reimbursement for medical services provided on December 14, 2020 is remanded.

The Board denied eligibility for a Government-furnished headstone or grave marker or memorial headstone or marker for L.D. as he did not serve in the active military service of the United States and his remains are unmarked.

The Veteran's surviving spouse, C., has been recognized as the surviving spouse. The Board is remanding this case to ensure that all contested claim procedures have been followed and to notify the currently-recognized surviving spouse of her rights.

The Board has remanded the case due to a duty-to-assist error, specifically failing to provide a VA examination and medical opinion regarding the relationship between the Veteran's esophageal adenocarcinoma and his active duty service.