Other conditions decisions — 2023

The Veteran's left hand disability, claimed as a pinched nerve, is not service-connected and compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for this condition is denied.

The Board has determined that a remand is necessary to obtain an addendum opinion regarding the Veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 due to potential negligence in removing a suture from his left eye.

The Board has remanded the claims for further development due to unclear documentation and confusion regarding payment or reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses incurred at Ocala Regional Medical Center in Florida. The AOJ is instructed to obtain clarification on whether any claims were approved, provide evidence of payment made, and determine if the Veteran's account balance was zero.

The Board found that the appellant's discharge from service was not dishonorable and granted their claim for VA benefits.

The Board has remanded the case due to additional evidence being added to the claims file and the need for further development before a decision can be made.

The Board has remanded the issue of whether withholding VA disability compensation benefits to recoup separation pay was proper due to a lack of issuance of a Statement of the Case (SOC) and because the Veteran's testimony at a hearing perfected his appeal. The matter is now for readjudication.

The Board has determined that the contested claims procedures have not been fully implemented and needs to provide RH with JH's substantive appeal content.

The Board has determined that a new medical opinion is necessary due to the inconsistency in findings regarding whether the Veteran's right foot disorder pre-existed service and was aggravated by service. The case is being remanded for further examination and opinion.

The Board found that the decedent's character of discharge was a bar to VA benefits due to willful and persistent misconduct, and thus denied his claims for service connection and survivor benefits.

The Board denied the Appellant's application to reopen her claim for revocation of forfeiture of eligibility for VA benefits, finding that new and material evidence did not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating her claim.

The Veteran's TDIU claim is being remanded for consideration of new evidence, including VA examinations and employment information. The AOJ will issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC).

The Veteran's vasovagal syncope is being remanded for a new VA examination to determine the nature and severity of his condition. The TDIU issue is also remanded as part of the increased rating claim.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for earlier effective dates for adding his spouse and children as dependents to his VA disability compensation, finding that no legal basis existed for such a claim prior to April 17, 2017.

The Board denied the Veteran's appeal because his VA Form 9 was not filed within the required 60-day period following the February 2017 Statement of the Case, and there was no evidence to support an extension or waiver of this requirement.

The Veteran's bilateral shin splints were granted increased ratings of 20 percent each, effective October 23, 2019. Prior to this date, the disability was rated at 10 percent for both lower extremities.

The Veteran's right knee instability was granted service connection with a combined disability rating of at least 30 percent effective August 15, 2017. The appeal for earlier effective dates for dependents is denied.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the Veteran's eating disorder, specifically her weight gain since service. A new examination is needed to determine if her current eating disorder is related to her service-connected PTSD.

The Board dismissed the appeal as it is moot due to the Veteran's death, and no jurisdiction remains for the merits of the case.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings for right and left shoulder disabilities due to polymyositis with atrophy of the shoulder and arm, as well as weakness of the hamstring muscles and chest atrophies, have been denied.,Higher ratings are not warranted under applicable diagnostic codes.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient medical evidence regarding whether the urinary incontinence began during ACDUTRA or if it was aggravated by that period. The claimant's condition is currently under review.