Other conditions decisions — 2022

The Veteran's appeal was dismissed due to their death, and the Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this case.

The Veteran's cause of death is due to service-connected pancreatic cancer, which was caused by exposure to contaminants and herbicides during his military service at Camp Lejeune. The Board has granted service connection for the cause of death.

The Veteran's serious injury incurred in 1984 is now eligible for PCAFC benefits, and the AOJ needs to continue processing the claim.

The Board has determined that new and relevant evidence has been received to warrant readjudication of the claim for service connection for fibrosis. The Veteran's claim is being remanded for a VA examination.

The Veteran's appeal for reimbursement of ambulance transport expenses is dismissed due to their death.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to a lack of a VA examination, and the Veteran's claim for service connection is related to aggravation. The examiner must assess whether the current condition is at least as likely as not caused by or related to service.

The Board has determined that the appellant's income exceeded the applicable maximum annual pension rates (MAPR) and thus terminated her survivor's pension benefits effective June 1, 2017.

The Board has decided that the Veteran's claim for PCAFC benefits is remanded due to a lack of proper notice and because the eligibility criteria have changed.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to errors in eligibility determination and notification, as well as issues with medical opinions.

The Veteran seeks compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for loss of vision in his right eye caused by an injection at a VA facility in May 2019. The Board found that the February 2021 medical opinion did not address whether the injection caused the right eye hemorrhagic choroidal detachment and remanded to correct this duty to assist error.

The Board is remanding the case to obtain medical records related to the Appellant's breast cancer diagnosis and treatment, in order to determine if her request for an extension of the delimiting date for DEA benefits was timely filed and whether it should be granted on the merits.

The Veteran's application for PCAFC benefits was denied due to a lack of sustained functional impairment meeting eligibility criteria. The Board has determined that the decision is legally flawed and requires further review by CEAT.

The Veteran's right eye vision loss is being remanded due to a duty to assist error. The VA examiner will need to determine if the May 15, 2019, injection caused the hemorrhagic choroidal detachment and whether this would result in loss of vision.

The Veteran's claim for payment of non-VA medical services provided on October 30, 2018 is being remanded due to inadequate notice and the need for proper adjudication under applicable regulations.

The Board has decided that the appellant is not eligible for attorney fees based on past-due benefits awarded in a March 2022 rating decision. The case is being remanded to ensure proper procedures are followed.

The Board has decided that the file is incomplete and the notifications are legally inadequate under 38 U.S.C. § 5104, as well as the medical decision upon which the decision was based is legally inadequate to support the decision made. The appeal is remanded for these reasons.

The Veteran's claim for eligibility to participate in the PCAFC program has been remanded due to errors in legal criteria and inadequate medical opinion. The AOJ must obtain a new medical opinion from CEAT based on updated eligibility criteria, including those set forth in 38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a)(2)(C)(ii)-(iii), and provide the Veteran with complete notice of the decision as required by 38 U.S.C. § 5104.

The Veteran's service connection claim for Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML) is granted as it was caused by or related to his presumed in-service exposure to herbicide agents, specifically Agent Orange.

The Board has dismissed the appeal as there is no longer a case or controversy for decision due to VA overturning its initial denial of the claim.

The Board has decided that the attorney fee related to past-due benefits from the April 2021 rating decision is reasonable. However, due to a pre-decisional duty to assist error, the case is being remanded for the AOJ to associate all evidence considered at the time of its November 2021 decision.