Other conditions decisions — 2023

The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate medical opinions and failure to address specific evidence. The Veteran's left knee disorder, including left chondromalacia patella, is being reviewed again for service connection.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for a total body condition is denied. The right knee disability has been granted with a 60% rating, but the left knee disability remains denied.

The Board has granted payment or reimbursement for unauthorized non-VA medical care from February 29, 2004, to March 9, 2004, at Oak Valley Hospital (OVH) due to the Veteran's inability to be safely transferred to a VA Medical Center.

The Board has remanded the case due to a lack of adequate statement of reasons or bases regarding the articles submitted with the May 2013 private medical opinion. The Veteran's cancer in 2001 is being reviewed for potential service connection.

The Veteran's inguinal hernia is rated at 30 percent, but no higher. The Veteran's scar from the inguinal hernia surgery is currently rated as 10 percent disabling. The Board has remanded for further development regarding a TDIU claim.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for left eye disability, other than residuals of a fracture involving the left inferior orbital rim, finding no evidence to support a link between his current condition and service or any toxicant exposures.

The Veteran's abdominal cramps are being remanded for further clarification as to whether they constitute a separate disability or are already covered by his service-connected leg cramps.

The Veteran requested resumption of his VA disability benefits prior to October 21, 2013. The Board denied the request as there was no evidence that the Veteran met the legal requirements for resuming benefits immediately following service.

The Veteran's claim for Total Disability Rating Based on Individual Unemployability (TDIU) is being remanded due to the AOJ not receiving necessary employment information from the Veteran. The AOJ will be asked again to provide the Veteran with a VA Form 21-8940 and give him another opportunity to respond.

The overpayment of $8,034.68 was due to VA's administrative error in not removing the Veteran's dependent daughter from his compensation award despite her receipt of Dependents Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits.

The Board has granted service connection for a sinus disorder with epistaxis, finding that the Veteran's current condition had its initial onset during her active military service.

The Board has remanded the claims for residuals of a left foot and right foot fifth metatarsal fractures, as well as the TDIU claim due to outstanding medical records.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to additional development being required, including reviewing income and medical expenses for each year in question.

The Veteran's request to reopen his service connection claim for chronic lymphocytic leukemia is granted. Service connection for the condition remains denied.

The Board denied a compensable evaluation for service-connected actinic keratosis and basal cell carcinoma, finding that the scars did not meet the criteria for a higher rating based on disfigurement.

The Board has remanded the case due to concerns about the ameliorative effects of medication and the need for a new VA examination regarding the Veteran's tardive dyskinesia.

The Board has remanded the cases due to new evidence indicating a worsening of the Veteran's left heel bone spur and left eye disability. The Veteran will need to undergo VA examinations to determine the current severity of his service-connected conditions.

The Board has remanded the cases for further development due to unobtained private treatment records from Dr. V.S., a nurse practitioner that focuses on Lyme disease.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for Nodular Malignant Lymphoma was reopened due to new and material evidence. Service connection for the condition is now granted.

The Board has decided that the character of the Appellant's discharge does not constitute a bar to VA benefits, but another remand is necessary due to incomplete records related to an upgrade of his discharge.