Other conditions decisions — 2023

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of left hand injury, finding that there was no evidence linking his current disability to his in-service injury.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient medical opinions regarding the Veteran's service-connected malaria and its residuals. The Veteran is required to provide an addendum opinion from a VA medical professional addressing the nature and severity of his residual conditions.

The Board dismissed challenges to the propriety of overpayment arising from military pension and remanded for further action on overpayment related to divorce. The AOJ found a CUE in invalidating part of the overpayment, but granted partial waivers.

The Veteran's claim for nonservice-connected pension benefits was denied because he is not permanently and totally disabled by way of non-service-connected disabilities prior to his attainment of age 65, and payment is precluded due to his incarceration.

The Veteran's claim for an initial compensable rating for service-connected chronic cough condition is remanded due to the need for another VA examination that includes DLCO testing or a proper explanation.

The Veteran's appeal for an initial compensable rating for his service-connected adjustment disorder is remanded due to scheduling issues and the need for a VA examination.

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant died during the pendency of the appeal.

The Veteran's right femoral neck fracture rating was restored to 60 percent effective May 1, 2018. He also received a separate noncompensable rating for limitation of flexion of the thigh.

The Veteran's service-connected right and left knee disabilities have caused his bilateral shin splints, resulting in a grant of at least a 10 percent rating for each condition.

The Board denied compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for lymphoma, concluding that VA did not fail to timely diagnose or treat the Veteran's condition.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete records and the need for clarification on the Veteran's employment with Olam Group. The TDIU claim will be reconsidered after these issues are addressed.

The Board denied an apportionment of the Veteran's VA benefits to the Appellant on behalf of D.E.W. because it would cause undue hardship for the Veteran and does not permit a reasonable amount to be paid to both the Veteran and an apportionee.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient medical opinions regarding whether the Veteran's multiple joint pain is related to service, including his in-service anthrax vaccination and combat experience. The VA must obtain additional medical opinions to address these issues.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for accrued benefits as there was no pending claim at the time of her mother's death, and thus no legal basis to grant the requested benefits.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient medical opinions and additional evidence needs to be obtained. The Veteran's claims for service connection and under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 are both being reviewed, with a focus on whether his conditions resulted from or were aggravated by VA care.

The Board has denied compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for loss of use of the right arm, numbness in the right small finger, and loss of flesh between the right thumb and index finger due to a lack of evidence showing that VA's care caused additional disability.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a bilateral eye disability (claimed as poor eyesight) due to lack of evidence showing an in-service injury or event related to his current diagnosed conditions.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient medical evidence and a need for an examination regarding the Veteran's asbestos exposure during service, which may have contributed to his lung cancer.

The Veteran's ventral hernia is rated at a minimum of 10 percent since December 10, 2013. The Board found that the Veteran's reports of pain are sufficient to warrant this rating.

The Board has remanded the case due to issues related to the Veteran's craniotomy for an aneurysm and subsequent stroke, including concerns about negligence in recommending surgery.