Other conditions decisions — 2023

The Veteran's left shoulder disability is currently rated at 30 percent, and the Board denied a higher rating. The claim for TDIU prior to September 19, 2014, remains pending.

The Board has decided that the appellant's character of discharge is a barrier to receiving VA benefits and has ordered further development to locate the appellant.

The Board has remanded the cases due to failure to attend a hearing and unsuccessful attempts to contact the appellant. The AOJ is instructed to verify the appellant's current address and ensure it is annotated in her electronic profile.

The Board has decided that the evidence is insufficient to determine if Crohn's disease was incurred in or aggravated by service, and thus remanded for further development.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal for total disability based on individual unemployability (TDIU). The Board dismissed the appeal.

The Board has remanded the cases for further development due to deficiencies in the medical opinions provided.

The Board has determined that additional development is needed to adjudicate the claim for a TDIU, including obtaining information from the Veteran's previous employers. The case will be remanded for this purpose.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for H. Pylori, peptic ulcer disease, and colitis with chronic stomach pain are denied as there is no current disability during the appeal period. The Board also remanded several other issues including GERD, costochondritis (Tietze's syndrome), menorrhagia with chronic abdominal pain, and anemia with constipation and chronic stomach pain.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to a lack of substantial compliance with previous directives, specifically regarding an examination for the severity of service-connected disabilities. The Veteran's eligibility for specially adapted housing is in question.

The Veteran's appeal for non-VA medical services reimbursement at Mount Carmel East Hospital on April 17, 2012 is dismissed due to the death of the Veteran during the pendency of the appeal.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for an in-person examination by an orthopedist to determine the nature and etiology of any current right hip/leg disability, including a right pelvic mass and lymphedema. The Veteran contends that her disability is related to VA treatment.

The Veteran's varicose veins of the right leg were first noted during service and have continued since then. The Board has granted service connection for this condition.

The Board has granted service connection for eosinophilic esophagitis, finding that it is at least as likely as not proximately due to the Veteran's service-connected allergic rhinitis.

The Board denied the Appellant's claim as his character of discharge from service constitutes a bar to VA benefits, other than health care under Chapter 17, Title 38, United States Code.

The Board has remanded the case due to a lack of an opinion regarding whether the Veteran's GIST is aggravated by her service-connected disabilities. The VA needs to obtain additional medical opinions on this issue.

The case is being remanded due to the need for a new VA medical opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran's claimed residuals of a left eye injury.

The Board has remanded the case due to missing treatment records and a need for an addendum medical opinion regarding the Veteran's gastrointestinal condition, including peptic ulcer disease and duodenitis. The Veteran contends that his conditions are related to service, but there is conflicting evidence.

The Board has ordered a remand for the issues of service connection for anemia and residuals of a hysterectomy due to procedural defects and incomplete development.

The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate opinions regarding the Veteran's eye conditions, specifically his refractive error, dry eye syndrome, and nuclear cataracts. The examiner is requested to consider the Veteran's reported in-service injuries and exposure to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune.

The Board has decided to remand the case for further development due to inadequate examinations and failure to address certain theories of service connection.