Other conditions decisions — 2023

The Veteran's right hip arthroplasty and left hip arthroplasty have been rated at 70 percent since the end of their respective periods of convalescence. The Board is remanding these issues for further development.,The Veteran's evaluations for limitation of extension, limitation of flexion, and limitations on adduction are also being remanded as they pertain to his hip arthroplasties.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to missing documents and an inadequate previous evaluation. An additional opinion is needed regarding whether the Veteran's right testicle is absent or nonfunctioning.

The Board denied service connection for a vision disorder, characterized as a retinal hole in the right eye, finding that there is no evidence to support a link between the condition and active service.

The Veteran's TDIU application is being remanded due to the possibility that he was unemployable because of service-connected narcolepsy from June 22, 2018 to February 25, 2020.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient reasoning in the September 2021 VA examination, specifically regarding whether the Appellant's preexisting gallbladder disability was aggravated by his ACDUTRA service. The AOJ must provide an addendum opinion addressing these specific complaints and their relation to the Appellant's service.

The Board has remanded the cases due to insufficient opinions in the VA examinations regarding service connection for low testosterone condition and seasonal allergies.

The Board has remanded the claims for bilateral shin splints due to insufficient evidence regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran's diagnosed disabilities. The claim will be returned after further examination.

The Veteran requires a power scooter but the apartment is not accessible and there is no sheltered storage available. The Board has ordered further assessment to determine if a ramp can be installed for access.

The Board has denied service connection for a respiratory condition and hyperventilation syndrome, but remanded the claims for heart disability, headaches, type II diabetes mellitus, left lower extremity neuropathy, right lower extremity neuropathy, left knee disability, and right knee disability.

The Board has remanded the case to determine the number of training days performed by the Veteran in Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004, as requested. The Veteran's service connection claim is not addressed.

The Board has determined that the calculation of the overpayment under the Post-9/11 GI Bill (Chapter 33) needs to be recalculated due to a remand directive, specifically regarding the application of the first instance of withdrawal provisions set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 21.9635(b).

The Board has dismissed the appeal as there is no justiciable case or controversy before it, given that service connection for bilateral impairment of central visual acuity and defective visual fields has already been granted.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to inadequate reasoning in a previous opinion regarding the Veteran's basal cell carcinoma of the right arm. The case will be returned for further examination and an adequate opinion.

The Board has remanded the case due to a lack of compliance with previous remand instructions and the need for an addendum opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran's bilateral eye disorder.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded to separate out the skin condition (porokeratosis) from the orthopedic disabilities for both feet, and to obtain additional private treatment records.

The Board dismissed the appeal because the appellant requested to withdraw his appeal.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the service connection for back impairment. The Veteran's representative argues that the condition is related to lifting heavy objects during service, and a private physician stated it was directly related to service. However, further medical examination or opinion is needed.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for skin condition, poor blood circulation of his right and left lower extremities are remanded due to failure to provide proper notice for scheduled VA examinations. The claim for TDIU benefits is also remanded.

The Board has remanded the cases for further action to obtain necessary documents from the appellant's birth records and treatment records.

The Board has determined that the appellant's claim for an earlier effective date of June 1, 2013 (the first day of the month in which the Veteran passed away) is granted. This decision applies only to DIC benefits.