Other conditions decisions — 2023

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

The Veteran's appeal for a rating in excess of 70 percent for adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and entitlement to TDIU has been dismissed due to the Veteran's withdrawal prior to the promulgation of a decision.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to issues with informed consent documentation and a need for an independent medical opinion regarding the Veteran's right hip and leg disability. The claim will be reviewed again based on these new findings.

The Board has remanded the case due to lack of substantial compliance with prior directives and needs further development, including obtaining an opinion from a VA examiner regarding the nature and severity of the Veteran's respiratory disorder.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for specially adapted housing, special home adaptation grant, and financial assistance in the purchase of an automobile or adaptive equipment due to insufficient medical opinions provided by VA. The case is returned to the AOJ for further development.

The Board has remanded the case for a VA examination to address whether the Veteran's bilateral foot nerve damage and pain is caused or aggravated by his service-connected disabilities, including his bilateral hallux valgus. The examiner should also provide an opinion on whether the Veteran sustained any additional disability as a result of multiple foot surgeries performed at VAMCs.

The Veteran's claim for a higher rating for his service-connected chronic skin disorder is denied as there was no increase in severity within the one-year period prior to his June 21, 2018, claim.

The Board has granted service connection for ataxia, previously claimed as CIDP, due to herbicide agent exposure. The Veteran's ataxia is considered related to his history of Agent Orange exposure.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for muscle pain, respiratory disability, and cervical spine disability due to potential service connection issues.

The Veteran's minor child, C.S., is seeking apportionment of the Veteran's VA compensation benefits due to arrears in child support and garnished wages. The appeal requires compliance with special procedural requirements associated with contested claims.

The Veteran's nephrolithiasis has not required diet therapy, drug therapy, or invasive procedures more than twice a year. Therefore, the condition does not meet the criteria for a compensable rating.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's Restless Leg Syndrome is related to his service from March 1982 to April 1996, but not to his service from February 1977 to February 1980. The evidence is in equipoise as to whether the condition was present during these periods.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient findings in the December 2019 DBQ regarding the Veteran's right hand tremor and its relation to his service-connected disability. The examiner is asked to provide an addendum opinion considering the Veteran's contentions, medical records, and symptomatology.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for an effective date prior to June 30, 2015 for a pension due to lack of credible evidence showing a valid pension claim was filed before that date.

The Board found that the Veteran did not knowingly submit false statements to VA, thus declaring the forfeiture of benefits improper and granting the appeal.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient medical opinions regarding whether VA's failure to timely diagnose and treat metastatic choriocarcinoma caused increased disability.

The Board has remanded the cases for further development due to insufficient medical opinions regarding the etiology of the Veteran's HIV and liver conditions.

The Board dismissed the appeal because the appellant withdrew it before a decision was made.

The Board has granted the Veteran's claim for service connection for a left arm disability, including his left biceps foreign body injury from a bullet fragment. The evidence supports that this condition is related to an in-service injury during active duty training.

The Board dismissed the appeal due to the Veteran's death, as appellants' claims do not survive their deaths.