Other conditions decisions — 2022

The Veteran's initial claim for uterine fibroids was granted, and she is now receiving a 30 percent disability rating. The appeal regarding the rating in excess of 30 percent for hysterectomy without oophorectomy inclusive of surgical scars from June 1, 2013 (excluding a period of convalescence) has been remanded.

Your appeal has been dismissed due to the Veteran's death. The Board does not have jurisdiction to proceed with your claim.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient medical opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran's basal cell carcinoma, including consideration of his exposure to arsenic compounds.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding whether the Veteran's umbilical/abdominal hernia is related to his military service.

The Board has granted service connection for bilateral cataracts, finding that the condition is related to the Veteran's service-connected primary open angle glaucoma.

The Board denied the claim for service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death, finding that there was no evidence showing a disability incurred in or aggravated by service either caused or contributed to his death.

The Board denied service connection for the cause of death due to a brain tumor and cardiac arrest, finding that there was no evidence linking these conditions to service or herbicide exposure. The claim for DIC under 38 U.S.C. § 1318 was also denied.

The appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's death, and no jurisdiction remains for further action.

The Board denied the appellant's request for an extension of her Chapter 33 educational benefits, stating that the service department had verified and approved the end transfer date of August 1, 2012. The appellant argued she was emotionally unable to return to school until after the Veteran's death in 2011, but this argument is not considered valid as VA does not have authority to grant equitable relief.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for difficulty breathing through the nose is remanded due to incomplete VA examination and outstanding treatment records. A new VA examination is needed to determine if this condition is related to service.

The Board has remanded the case due to a lack of private treatment records from Dr. R. P., the Veteran's private nephrologist, which were not obtained as part of the prior development.

The Board denied the survivor's pension claim as the appellant's income exceeded the applicable maximum annual pension rate (MAPR).

The Board has restored a 60 percent rating for the Veteran's adenocarcinoma of prostate status post radiation treatment, which was previously reduced to 20 percent.

The Veteran's claim for payment of the cost of non-VA medical services provided on August 15, 2020 is remanded due to a lack of proper notice and consideration of relevant evidence.

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

The appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's death, and no final decision can be made.

The Veteran's surviving spouse received a past-due benefits award in the April 2020 rating decision. The appellant, who is her attorney, was awarded 20% of this amount based on the July 2020 fee decision. The appellant appealed for additional fees but the Board found that he had already been awarded the correct percentage and denied his appeal.

The Board has decided that the AOJ did not exhaust all efforts to reconstruct and associate relevant documents with the electronic record, particularly related to a denied claim for durable medical equipment. The matter is therefore remanded for further action.

The Board has remanded the case due to conflicting opinions regarding whether the Veteran's heart condition is related to his in-service herbicide agent exposure. The VA examiner found it less likely than not that the heart condition is due to herbicide exposure, citing a history of alcohol abuse and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy.

The Board has restored the Veteran's total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) effective January 1, 2019. The decision concludes that actual employability was not established by clear and convincing evidence at the time of the reduction in TDIU.