Other conditions decisions — 2022

The Board denied the appellant's request to extend her delimiting date for DEA benefits under Chapter 35, Title 38, United States Code due to a lack of evidence showing she was prevented from attending school due to a medical disability.

The Board has found that the VA examination provided in December 2019 was inadequate for adjudication purposes and another remand is necessary to provide a new opinion on the etiology of the Veteran's currently diagnosed right and left epicondylitis.

The Veteran's unauthorized medical expenses for emergency treatment at Central Florida Regional Hospital on February 12, 2014 are reimbursed as a result of the non-availability of VA facilities within reasonable distance and the prudent layperson standard.

The Board has remanded the case due to issues related to service connection for the cause of death and possible opioid overintoxication. Additional evidence is needed, including VA treatment records and a medical opinion on the etiology of the Veteran's death.

The Veteran's right foot strain is currently rated as 10 percent disabling. The Board has denied a higher rating for this condition. For the gynecological disorder, the claim is remanded to obtain an addendum opinion addressing whether it is at least as likely as not related to service.

The Board has decided that the case needs to be remanded for further examination and development due to conflicting medical findings regarding the Veteran's service-connected bilateral optic neuritis.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the onset of the Veteran's respiratory disorder during service and its relationship to his smoking history.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's scoliosis and spina bifida occulta are related to his active service, granting service connection for these conditions.

The Veteran's neurocognitive disorder is considered to be due to his service-connected bipolar disorder, and thus already rated under that condition. The claim for separate service connection for the neurocognitive disorder is denied.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's left hand disability was not caused or aggravated by his service-connected left fifth finger fracture, and therefore denied service connection for this condition.

The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate medical opinions and further evaluation is needed.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for peripheral artery disease of the left lower extremity and a temporary total rating based on prolonged hospitalizations, finding that there was no evidence linking these conditions to his military service or any service-connected disability.

The Board has restored service connection for allergic conjunctivitis with meibomian gland dysfunction and dry eye syndrome, as well as granted service connection for two abdominal hernias. The decision is based on the Veteran's in-service diagnoses and her current symptoms.

The Board has remanded the claims for further development due to conflicting medical records regarding the Veteran's diagnoses and exposure history.

The Veteran's service connection claim for colon cancer as secondary to Agent Orange exposure is being remanded due to insufficient evidence linking the condition to his in-service exposure.

The Board has decided to remand the cases for additional development and consideration, including obtaining Social Security Administration records, VA and private treatment records, and a new VA examination. The issues of entitlement to an extraschedular rating for idiopathic chronic urticaria and TDIU are also being referred for further review.

The Board has granted the Veteran's claim for an effective date of February 13, 2009 for reinstatement of nonservice-connected pension benefits.

The Board has determined that the case must be remanded to determine if the Veteran's goal of becoming an attorney is reasonably feasible and whether he should receive additional vocational rehabilitation.

The Veteran's service did not fall within a period of war, thus he does not have the wartime service required to confer eligibility for VA pension benefits and his claim must be denied.

The Board denied the veteran's surviving spouse's claim for accrued benefits as her eligibility terminated before payment could have become due or payable.