Other conditions decisions — 2023

The Board has decided to remand the case due to a lack of clarification on the VA addendum opinion and because there may be additional private treatment records from Dr. L.R. that have not been reviewed.

The Board denied the appellant's request for retroactive payment of Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits prior to September 18, 2009 due to her failure to elect a beginning date within the required 60-day period. The effective date was set at September 18, 2009, which corresponds with the date of VA's decision awarding the Veteran a 100 percent disability rating.

The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate development of the appellant's deceased father's military service status, including whether he served as a guerrilla soldier or under a recognized commissioned officer.

The Board has denied a rating in excess of 10 percent for the Veteran's left epididymal cyst and has remanded the issue of entitlement to TDIU due to service-connected disabilities.

The Veteran's death claim for DIC benefits as the surviving child of his spouse was denied because the appellant could not be recognized as a dependent child due to lack of evidence showing their relationship.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient consideration of specific theories of entitlement and exposure details, including potential contributions from petroleum products and asbestos. Additional development is needed to clarify these issues.

The Veteran's initial claim for a compensable rating for her service-connected pityriasis versicolor was denied as the condition does not meet the criteria for a higher rating under either the old or new VA rating criteria.

The Board has remanded the case to determine if there was clear and unmistakable error in a December 6, 2010 rating decision regarding the effective date for a 60 percent rating for genital herpes of the penile shaft, buttocks and suprapubic region.

The Board has decided to remand the claims for bilateral elbow and wrist disabilities due to incomplete development of records, including private treatment and workers compensation records. The Veteran will be provided another opportunity to submit or authorize VA to obtain relevant private treatment records.

The Board has determined that the VA's treatment did not cause or worsen the Veteran's claimed conditions, and thus remanded for further evaluation.

The Board found that the overpayment of $26,536.52 for kicker benefits was due to administrative error and/or error in judgment on VA's part, thus granting the appeal.

The Veteran's TDIU claim is denied as the evidence does not show he is unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation due to his service-connected disabilities.

The Veteran's appeal for an increased evaluation of his right hemifacial spasm and service connection for a right eye disorder, which is secondary to his service-connected right hemifacial spasm, has been remanded due to inadequate examination reports. The Veteran needs new evaluations to determine the severity of his disability and the nature and etiology of any diagnosed right eye disorder.

The Veteran's hip disabilities, specifically right and left hip bursitis, are currently rated as noncompensable. The ratings for limitation of extension and flexion have not met the criteria for a compensable rating.

The Veteran's chronic epididymitis with testalgia is not entitled to a higher rating, and the Board denied an extraschedular rating. The Veteran was granted TDIU based on his service-connected disabilities.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a vision disability, finding that there was no evidence linking his current vision disability to his military service.

The Veteran's appeal for educational assistance benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill was denied because she had already used her qualifying period of active-duty service to establish entitlement to education benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill (Chapter 30).

The appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's death, and no final decision can be made.

The Board has dismissed the claim for TDIU as it was granted in a previous decision and no further action is needed.

The Board has remanded the claims for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 due to insufficient medical evidence and lack of substantial compliance with previous remand directives.