Other conditions decisions — 2023

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for stomach cancer, finding that there was no evidence linking his diagnosed gastric adenocarcinoma to his military service or exposure to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune.

The Veteran's son is granted payment of accrued benefits in the amount of $2,498.50 due to his burial expenses.

The Veteran and the appellant were divorced in 1999. The appellant was not recognized as the surviving spouse of the Veteran for VA purposes due to lack of continuous cohabitation prior to the Veteran's death.

The Board has determined that the appellant is recognized as the surviving spouse of the Veteran for purposes of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC). The actual issue of entitlement to DIC benefits was not addressed in previous notifications, so it is remanded for further action.

The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate examination and development of the skin disability claim.

The Veteran's appeal for VA payment or reimbursement of medical expenses, including travel and treatment costs from October and November 2015, was dismissed because the appeal was erroneously attributed to him. The Board regrets any confusion caused.

The Board has determined that there was procedural error in the handling of the Veteran's appeal and has ordered a remand to evaluate the evidence and issue an SOC.

The Board has denied the claim for TDIU due to incomplete information provided by the Veteran regarding his employment history and education, which was requested in connection with the appeal. The issue is considered abandoned as the Veteran did not provide the requested information within one year of the request.

The Board has restored the Veteran's 30 percent rating for service-connected mid atrial enlargement, finding that the reduction was improper due to lack of actual improvement in the disability.

The Board has determined that all steps necessary to ensure the procedural and due process rights of the parties have not been completed, and additional development is necessary prior to adjudication of the appeal for an apportionment of the Veteran's benefits.

The Veteran's representative withdrew the appeal for entitlement to a total disability rating for individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disability.

The Board has decided that the Appellant's claim for pension based on excessive income should be remanded due to lack of response and new evidence not being considered.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete development and requests for an addendum to a DBQ. The Veteran's prostatitis or residuals need to be evaluated in relation to service, including presumed herbicide exposure.

The Veteran's fracture of the maxilla and splintering of the buccal plate is granted a 40 percent rating effective November 5, 2018. The TDIU claim before November 8, 2018 remains on appeal.

The Board found that the severance of service connection for multiple myeloma was improper and restored it, citing new evidence from the PACT Act.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for ovarian cancer and SMC due to loss of use of a creative organ have been reopened. The Board finds that new and material evidence has been received, but additional development is needed before final adjudication can be made.

The Board has granted service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death, finding that his fatal hepatocellular carcinoma was caused by his alcohol use disorder, which is a secondary condition to his service-connected PTSD.

The Veteran's right knee disability, including Osgood-Schlatter's disease and osteoarthritis, was rated at 20 percent effective from March 7, 2022. The rating is for instability of the meniscus.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence and procedural issues, including obtaining VA treatment records and verifying periods of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) and inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA).

The Veteran's osteoporosis is considered a direct service-connected condition due to long-term corticosteroid use for hypereosinophilic syndrome, and the decision grants compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151.