Other conditions decisions — 2023

The Veteran's right foot disability is currently rated at 10 percent, but the Board finds that it does not meet or approximate criteria for a higher rating. The evidence shows moderate symptoms and no more than moderately severe disability.

The Board has determined that the procedural and due process rights of the parties have not been completed, specifically regarding notification of the appellant's March 2020 substantive appeal. The case is being remanded to ensure full compliance with the contested claims procedures.

The Board has remanded the cases for further review due to additional relevant evidence being added to the record.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to a duty to assist error, specifically failing to obtain all necessary documents to determine if the Veteran was a fugitive felon. The validity of the overpayment issue must be resolved before further consideration of the waiver request.

The Board has determined that the Veteran is competent to handle disbursement of VA funds and dismissed the appeal.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to a duty to assist error and insufficient examination regarding exposure to herbicide agents.

The Veteran's claims for earlier effective dates for service connection are denied. The Board found that the evidence does not support an earlier effective date than February 27, 1992.

The Veteran's urethral disorder, including pan-urethral stricture disease, is not proximately due to carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, error in judgment or similar instance of fault on the part of VA and is not the result of an event that was not reasonably foreseeable.

The appeal for PCAFC benefits is dismissed as the Veteran died before eligibility could be determined.

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

The Board has decided to remand the case for a new VA examination to assess the severity of service-connected photophobia, as the previous evaluation was inadequate.

The Board has dismissed the issue of whether the Veteran's additional VA compensation benefits for a dependent spouse were properly terminated effective October 1, 2015. The matter of determining the correct amount of debt created when the Veteran's additional VA compensation benefits for a dependent spouse were terminated is being remanded.

The Veteran's eligibility for a higher-level stipend under the PCAFC program was dismissed as he passed away, and benefits are not considered periodic monetary benefits.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease stage 3 and secondary to his service-connected leishmaniasis was granted with a 100% rating effective September 17, 2019. The Board denied an earlier effective date.

The Board dismissed the appeal because the issue of recognizing P.H. as a dependent school child for additional VA compensation has already been resolved and benefits have been established.

The Board has granted service connection for throat cancer due to asbestos exposure, finding that the Veteran's MOS created a probable exposure to asbestos as part of his duties and considering the totality of the record including Dr. C.K.'s analysis.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to pre-decisional errors in duty to assist and will consider new evidence, including medical records and VR&E records. The Veteran's vocational goal of self-employment running and/or teaching esthetician and barber skills is being reassessed by a VRC.

The Veteran withdrew all matters on appeal before the decision was finalized, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

The Board has dismissed the appeal regarding the propriety of removing K.M. as a dependent spouse for VA dependency benefits, as it was granted in full with the correct date being February 2012.

The appeal was dismissed due to the Veteran's death, and no jurisdiction remains for adjudicating the merits of the case.