Other conditions decisions — 2023

The Veteran's claim for reimbursement of medical expenses from Mayo Clinic is remanded due to unclear information about third-party payment and the Veteran's personal liability.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's achievement of a vocational goal in the field of photography is not reasonably feasible due to his service-connected and nonservice-connected disabilities, which prevent him from successfully pursuing employment as a photographer.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for benign prostatic hypertrophy, finding no evidence of a relationship between his condition and active service or any other factor.

The Board has determined that the Appellant meets the statutory definition of a 'child' for purposes of receiving DIC benefits and is eligible to be recognized as the Veteran's surviving child.

The Board has granted reinstatement of the apportionment for $600 per month to the appellant on behalf of both minor children, R.R. and P.R., as it found that the termination was improper due to the Veteran's failure to discharge his responsibility for support.

The Board has determined that the appellant does not have a current lower gastrointestinal disability, and any such disability is not causally related to an in-service event or disease. The evidence shows only one episode of gastroenteritis during service which resolved without persistent symptoms.

The Board has remanded the claims for right trigeminal neuralgia and TDIU due to service-connected disabilities. The decision is pending further action from VA.

The Board has remanded the case due to additional evidence being submitted by the appellant, and they requested that it be reviewed by the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ).

The Veteran's claim for a total disability rating due to individual unemployability is being remanded because new evidence was submitted by VA, and the AOJ has not reviewed this evidence in its initial adjudication of the case.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claims for a compensable rating for inguinal hernia and hallux valgus of the left foot, finding that there is no evidence to support a higher rating based on current symptoms or medical findings.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a respiratory disability, finding that there is not an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence to support the claim. The Board concluded that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of a respiratory disability related to his military service.

The Board has remanded the case due to non-compliance with prior directives and a need for an addendum opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran's claimed bilateral eye disability, specifically whether it is at least as likely as not caused or aggravated by his service-connected diabetes mellitus.

The Board has determined that the VA did not substantially comply with a previous remand, and thus the case is being returned to the RO for further development.

The Board denied reimbursement for unauthorized medical expenses incurred on February 20, 2017 due to lack of emergency treatment and unavailability of VA facilities.

The Board has remanded the case due to an inadequate VA examination and a need for further development, including obtaining additional medical records and scheduling a new VA examination.

The Veteran withdrew their motion to revise a Board decision on the basis of clear and unmistakable error (CUE). The Board dismissed this motion without prejudice to refiling.

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant died during the pendency of the appeal and therefore, the Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this appeal.

The Veteran's acute gastroenteritis was diagnosed during service and continues to this day. The Board found that the symptoms began in service, granting service connection for acute gastroenteritis.

The Board has remanded the case due to a need for further examination and medical opinion regarding the relationship between the Veteran's gallbladder condition, pancreatitis, and service.

The Board denied the Veteran's request for an apportionment of more than $250.00 per month on behalf of their child, C.B., due to the appellant failing to establish hardship beyond this amount and because a higher amount would cause undue hardship to the Veteran given his court-ordered child support obligation.