Other conditions decisions — 2022

The Board has determined that additional evidentiary development is necessary prior to deciding the appeal for accrued benefits. The case will be returned to the AOJ for readjudication.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for a stroke and its residuals, as well as for a nerve disorder of the bilateral upper extremities. The evidence did not support a finding that these conditions were related to service or exposure to herbicide agents.

The Board has remanded two issues: service connection for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and service connection for a lung/respiratory disability manifested by the need for oxygen, to include as due to service-connected hypertension (HTN). The AOJ is instructed to provide additional development in these cases.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient medical opinions and a need for additional evidence. The Veteran's oropharyngeal cancer is being reviewed again, with consideration of new medical literature and potential proximate causation from a service-connected disability.

The Veteran's request for a clothing allowance for the use of a knee brace in 2014 is being remanded due to incomplete documentation. The Board cannot make any award permanent as clothing allowances are annual awards that require reapplication each year.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for additional VA treatment records, particularly from January 1, 2012 to December 30, 2012. The claim will be reconsidered after these records are obtained.

The Veteran is found incompetent to handle his VA funds due to neurocognitive impairment, and the appeal is denied.

The Board dismissed the appeal because the appellant died during the pendency of her appeal, making it moot.

The Board has granted the Veteran's claim for service connection for adjustment mood disorder as secondary to her service-connected disabilities, finding that the evidence is at least in balance and resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to errors in obtaining a VA medical opinion and potential private treatment records related to the Veteran's cause of death.

The Board has determined that there was a pre-decisional duty to assist error and the case is being remanded for recalculation of overpayment amount and reconsideration of the validity of the debt.

The Board has remanded the case due to a lack of records related to the effective date for PCAFC benefits. The appellant is contesting the effective date of her award, and additional documentation needs to be uploaded.

The Veteran's appeal regarding eligibility for benefits under the Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC) is remanded due to insufficient notice provided.

The Veteran's eligibility for PCAFC benefits is being remanded due to inadequate notice in the initial decision, and the need to correct the error based on a new judicial ruling.

The Board has decided that the file is incomplete and there are legal issues with the notification provided to the Veteran regarding their eligibility for PCAFC benefits. The decision also notes a pre-decisional duty-to-assist error due to an incorrect definition of 'need for supervision, protection or instruction' under 38 C.F.R. § 71.15.

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant requested to withdraw his appeal.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete records and unclear authority for payment of medical services provided by At Home Nursing Registry.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded due to the RO failing to address his claims for a higher rating and whether his astigmatism and diplopia are related to his service-connected bilateral pterygium. The case will be returned for further examination.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to a duty to assist error and will provide an opinion regarding whether the Veteran's myasthenia gravis is related to service, including in-service exposure to herbicide agents.

The Board dismissed the appeal for attorney fees eligibility because the March 2022 letter did not explicitly deny fees, and thus there was no final decision to review.