Other conditions decisions — 2023

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete documentation of Explanation of Benefits (EOB) from the Veteran's primary insurance company. The AOJ is instructed to attempt to obtain these records and make a formal finding if they cannot be obtained.

The Board has remanded the case for further development and readjudication due to issues related to the Veteran's service-connected prostatitis, including whether his BPH is a continuation of his service-connected prostatitis or if it was caused or aggravated by his service-connected condition.

The Board has remanded the case due to a lack of service treatment records, and additional development is required.

The Board has remanded the case due to errors in addressing the duration of service at Camp Lejeune and missing VA treatment records. The appellant's squamous cell carcinoma is being considered for service connection based on exposure to contaminated water.

The Veteran's service-connected Crohn's disease status post intestinal resection and ileostomy (claimed with anemia) is granted a 100 percent rating, effective from February 26, 2010. The matter of entitlement to TDIU has been rendered moot as the Veteran now receives a 100 percent schedular evaluation for his Crohn's disease.

The Board denied the Veteran's appeal as there was no reasonable doubt that he received VA disability compensation and drill pay for training days in fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2014. The claim is therefore denied.

The Veteran's pancreatic cancer is granted as service-connected due to exposure to toxic substances in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during active service, with presumptive service connection under the PACT Act.

The Board has remanded the claims for service connection for STD and left toe disability due to insufficient evidence regarding their etiology. Additional examinations are needed to determine if these conditions are related to active service.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for earlier effective dates due to his divorce and remarriage, finding that VA did not receive notification of his marriage within one year of the event.

The Veteran's former spouse, the appellant mother, was granted an apportionment of 20 percent of the Veteran's VA disability compensation benefits on behalf of their child, T.D., while she was still a minor and attending school.

The Veteran's appeal was denied as her claim for increased evaluation and compensable ratings for left hip arthritis and flexion were not supported by the evidence.,Effective dates prior to June 8, 2016 for service connection of left hip disabilities were also denied.

The Board has remanded the claims for service connection for right and left eye disabilities due to incomplete development, including obtaining additional medical opinions based on the evidence of record.

The Veteran's spouse, the Appellant, was found eligible for Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits under Chapter 35, Title 38, United States Code. However, her request to extend the delimiting date beyond January 22, 2019 due to caregiving duties was denied as there was no legal basis for such extension.

The Veteran's service-connected acquired psychiatric disorder, including unspecified trauma and stressor-related disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and cannabis use disorder, prevents him from securing or maintaining substantially gainful employment.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for colon cancer, finding that there was no evidence linking his condition to his military service or exposure to herbicide agents.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for a VA examination and medical opinion regarding whether the Veteran's follicular lymphoma is related to his toxic exposure risk activity during service, specifically working with military vehicles as a driver and mechanic. The claim will be further adjudicated after this examination.

The Board has determined that the Appellant's substantive appeal was untimely and has now been reinstated. Further development is required to ensure full compliance with contested claims procedures, including providing the Veteran with a copy of the content of her November 18, 2019 substantive appeal and associated attachments, as well as requesting financial information for the entire period on appeal.

The Board has remanded the case due to conflicting evidence regarding whether the Veteran currently has a lung disability. The case will be reviewed again with additional development, including obtaining updated VA treatment records and a new medical opinion from a different VA examiner.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the relationship between the Veteran's AML and his service, specifically due to a lack of an appropriate specialist medical opinion. The VA is instructed to obtain additional records and provide a new medical examination by a hematologist or oncologist.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims of service connection for right foot and left foot disorders due to inadequate examination findings. The Veteran asserts his conditions are related to active service, including parachute jumps.