Other conditions decisions — 2023

The Board denied service connection for a skin disability, finding no evidence linking the current condition to service or herbicide exposure.

The Veteran's claim for a rating in excess of 40 percent for his back disability is denied. The Board also found that the Veteran was entitled to TDIU prior to June 9, 2023 and dismissed the claim for TDIU beginning June 9, 2023 as moot.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a right arm disability, finding that there is no medical evidence linking his current diagnosis to his military service.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for a new examination and opinions regarding the Veteran's swallowing condition, its relationship to service, and whether it is secondary to his service-connected disabilities.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for special monthly compensation based on aid and attendance and housebound status, finding that his need for regular aid and assistance was due to nonservice-connected dementia. The appeal is dismissed.

The Veteran's appeal for an increased rating for head injury residuals, other than headaches, is remanded due to the inadequacy of the July 2023 TBI examination. Further clarification or a more detailed rationale is required regarding the overlap between TBI residuals and service-connected major depressive disorder, fibromyalgia, and spine-associated neurologic disability.

The Board has granted service connection for the Veteran's colitis, finding that it is related to his active duty service.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient medical evidence to determine if the Veteran's service-connected disabilities resulted in loss of use of both feet, as defined by VA regulations. The appellant contends that her husband had lost use of his lower extremities due to his service-connected conditions.

The Veteran's chest pain, stomach pain, and muscle spasms are presumed to be related to his service in the Southwest Asia theater of operations.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded due to issues related to his service-connected adjustment disorder, chronic and unspecified trauma stressor related disorder. The claim for a TDIU has also been raised but requires proper notice before adjudication.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for blurred vision, finding that there was no evidence of a current eye disorder other than refractive errors and noting inconsistent statements regarding the onset and continuity of his symptoms. The Board also found conflicting medical opinions.

The Board denied service connection for the cause of death due to lack of evidence linking the Veteran's brain tumor, which developed after discharge from active duty, to his military service or exposure to herbicide agents.

The Veteran's claim for increased rating for lumbar strain with degenerative disc disease was granted. Service connection claims for left shoulder, left knee, and bilateral foot disorders were denied.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal, and the Board dismissed it due to lack of allegations for appellate consideration.

The Veteran's child, A.M., is denied recognition as a dependent child on the basis of permanent incapacity for self-support prior to attaining age 18 due to insufficient evidence showing she was incapable of self-support.

The Board has determined that there are two separate overpayments and needs to prepare an audit to show the dates of each, any overlapping periods, and the amounts owed.

The Board has remanded the claim for service connection for back strain due to a lack of records from healthcare providers who treated the Veteran's back disability, specifically those dated December 1998, February 2000, March 2003, and September 2016. The Veteran is asked to provide the names and addresses of these healthcare providers.

The Board has determined that the debt of $3,001.79 was properly created due to an overpayment of Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. However, new evidence from the Texas School of Massage suggests the Veteran may have been entitled to benefits during her internship period. The case is being remanded for further review and clarification.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claim for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) prior to February 13, 2013 due to conflicting evidence regarding when he last worked fulltime. The AOJ is instructed to seek clarification from the Veteran and refer his claim to VA's Director of Compensation Service for extraschedular consideration if the date of cessation of fulltime employment is prior to February 13, 2013.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded due to inadequate notice in the July 2019 decision regarding his request for restoration of Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. The AOJ must provide proper notice and correct any errors.