Other conditions decisions — 2022

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for additional development due to incomplete examination reports. The Veteran is seeking a compensable disability rating for his residuals of right groin cyst and lipoma, posterior to the thorax.

The Board dismissed the appeal due to the death of the appellant, as appellants' claims do not survive their deaths.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the Veteran's service connection for Hodgkin's lymphoma, specifically related to his exposure during service and woodworking duties.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claim for service connection of a neurological disorder of the bilateral upper extremities, to include as due to in-service exposure to herbicide agents (Agent Orange). The appeal is being returned to the AOJ for additional development and consideration.

The Veteran's arteriosclerosis is denied as there is no evidence of its onset during service or within one year after separation, and the use of oral contraceptives did not cause the condition.

The Board has determined that the Veteran does not have a current left arm disability related to his active service or any incident of service, including as due to his service-connected spinal fusion for spondylolisthesis. Therefore, service connection is denied.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a right eye disability, finding that there was no evidence to support a nexus between her current eye conditions and her military service.

The Board has denied service connection for varicose veins of the left lower extremity, finding that there is no evidence to support a link between the condition and service.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for a higher rating for his large schwannoma, finding that there was no evidence of recurrence or malignancy after October 1, 2015. The Veteran's disability had been rated as 100% disabling since February 3, 2006, and this rating was discontinued by operation of law on October 1, 2015.

The Board has remanded the case due to concerns about the timing of the Veteran's non-Hodgkin's lymphoma diagnosis and its relation to service.

The Board found that the overpayment of VA compensation benefits was properly created due to the Veteran's failure to promptly notify the RO of his divorce from his former spouse, resulting in an overpayment.

The Board dismissed the appeal because the appellant requested to withdraw it before a decision was made.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to new evidence being added since the last decision. The appellant is seeking service connection for the Veteran's cause of death as due to herbicide exposure, but additional documents have been submitted by VA without a waiver and need to be reviewed.

The Veteran's left hand injury and resulting arthritis are being remanded for an addendum opinion to consider the medical article submitted by the Veteran and clarify whether the foreign bodies in his left hand are related to a mortar attack during service.

The Veteran's death in December 2013 ended his entitlement to pension benefits, and there were no unpaid benefits at the time of his death. As the Appellant is not a spouse or child eligible for a month of death payment, her appeal for accrued benefits was denied.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient medical opinions regarding the Veteran's claimed eye disabilities, including dry eye and photophobia. The claim will be returned for further development.

The Veteran's claim for a higher disability rating for bilateral dry eye syndrome is denied. The Board has also remanded the issue of entitlement to an increased disability rating for right orbital fracture residuals with photophobia, as there are questions regarding the etiology and severity of any diagnosed visual field defect.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for service connection for cold injury residuals of both feet due to a lack of STRs and the need for further medical examination.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient evidence regarding whether the Veteran's essential tremor is related to his service-connected diabetes mellitus type II. The VA will need to provide further clarification on this issue.

The Board has remanded the case due to additional evidence submitted by the appellant, and it is requested that the AOJ initially review this evidence.