Other conditions decisions — 2022

The Board has remanded the case due to a lack of compliance with previous remand directives and the need for an opinion from a colorectal surgeon regarding whether the Veteran's cecal tubulovillous adenoma is related to service, including presumed exposures at Camp Lejeune.

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant died during the pendency of the appeal, and the Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this appeal.

The Board granted an increased rating of 30 percent, but no higher, for chronic gastritis with duodenal ulcer and irritable colon syndrome from April 13, 2011.

The Veteran's claim for special monthly pension based on housebound status is denied because he does not have a single disability rated at 100% and additional disabilities rated at 60% or more, nor is he permanently housebound.

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

The Board has remanded the case due to a lack of informed consent documentation and an unclear relationship between the Veteran's nerve disability and his June 2016 surgery. The case will be reviewed for any additional disability caused by VA treatment, with consideration given to whether it was proximately caused by VA fault or unforeseeable events.

The Veteran's cause of death was myelofibrosis, a condition he received treatment for at Sacred Heart Oncology. The Board has ordered additional development to obtain his VA treatment records from this provider.

The Veteran's death was not service-connected, and the VA awarded $2,780.63 in burial benefits. The Appellant seeks additional reimbursement for transportation expenses but is denied as the Veteran was buried at a private cemetery.

The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate medical opinions regarding the Veteran's lung condition.

The Veteran's claim for a higher initial rating for residuals of DVT with soft tissue injury was denied, but he received a separate 40 percent rating for neuropathic pain and neurological manifestations. The case is remanded due to the need for further examination and consideration.

The Veteran's adenocarcinoma of the rectum was caused by VA's failure to timely diagnose and treat his condition, resulting in its progression. As a result, compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 is granted.

The Veteran's claim for vocational rehabilitation and employment benefits was denied because he has not shown interest in pursuing a different vocational goal, despite being offered opportunities. The Board found that the criteria for VR&E benefits were not met.

The Board has granted the Veteran's applications to reopen her claims for service connection for residuals of gastric bypass surgery and a stomach condition, finding that obesity (caused by her service-connected bipolar disorder) served as an 'intermediate step' between her service-connected disability and her current disabilities. Service connection is therefore granted under a secondary service connection theory.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal before a decision was made, so the case is dismissed.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for service connection and rating determinations related to his bilateral hip avascular necrosis and left thumb injuries due to inadequate examination findings.

The appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's death, and no further action can be taken on this case.

The Board has granted service connection for a left thumb disability, finding that the Veteran's current condition is due to his in-service injury and resolving all reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the etiology of arthritis, other than arthritis of the knees, shoulders, and back. A new VA examination is needed to determine if any diagnosed joint arthritis had its onset in service or is otherwise related to service.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for an apportionment of the Veteran's VA compensation benefits because the parties were divorced prior to the filing of the current claim, and former spouses are not eligible for such benefits.

The Board denied the special apportionment of VA benefits to A.L.W., finding that it was not proper due to procedural irregularities and lack of evidence supporting a hardship or fraudulent documents. The Veteran's income exceeded his expenses, while A.L.W.'s financial needs were demonstrated.