Other conditions decisions — 2024

The Board has dismissed the claim for accrued benefits as moot because the Appellant is a substitute claimant and her rights are greater than those of an accrued benefits recipient. No additional benefit can be gained under accrued benefits, nor does any controversy remain.

The Veteran's service is not considered wartime service, thus he does not meet the eligibility criteria for nonservice-connected pension benefits.

The Board has determined that the March 2021 decision, affirming the Level 1 stipend and denying a Level 2 stipend, is legally inadequate due to insufficient reasoning. The Veteran's eligibility for PCAFC benefits under a Level 2 stipend is remanded for further review by the CEAT.

The Board denied service connection for a left eye condition claimed as left eye uveitis and diagnosed as acquired absence of the eye, presence of artificial eye, arcus senilis, and blindness due to lack of evidence showing it began during active service or is related to an in-service injury.

The Board has decided that the Veteran's service connection claim for a sinus condition should be remanded due to insufficient evidence regarding its relationship to his active service, particularly considering his exposure to burn pits during his service in Southwest Asia.

The appeal was dismissed because the overpayment issue has been resolved and the Veteran requested to withdraw his appeal.

The Veteran's right and left thumb tardive dyskinesia have not more nearly approximated the criteria for a higher disability rating under Diagnostic Code 5228, resulting in a denial of increased ratings.

Your appeal for payment of non-VA medical services provided in June 2019 has been dismissed as the claim was resolved in your favor and payment approved.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for service connection for left and right leg conditions due to incomplete medical records and inadequate examination opinions. The AOJ will obtain relevant treatment records and provide a VA medical addendum opinion.

Your appeal for service connection regarding bilateral hearing loss has been dismissed as the appellant and their representative have withdrawn the appeal.

The Veteran's child requested an extension of the delimiting date for use of DEA benefits beyond June 14, 2019. The Board denied this request as it was untimely filed.

The Board dismissed the appeal as the administrative action approving payment of non-VA care provided on November 18, 2020, constitutes a reversal of the previous denial and full grant of the benefit sought.

The Veteran's claims for increased evaluations of his service-connected bilateral hip conditions are being remanded due to deficiencies in the VA examination reports and failure to obtain relevant medical records.

The Board dismissed the Veteran's claims for increased disability ratings for right knee partial ACL tear with anterior compartment syndrome and arthritis, as the Regional Office implemented the October 2019 decision granting these conditions a 10 percent rating.

The Board has denied service connection for hyperlipidemia and vitamin D deficiency, but has remanded the claim for a recurrent sleep disability to include obstructive sleep apnea.

The Veteran's ambulance transport costs are being remanded due to a claim processing error where the appellant did not provide an explanation of benefits (EOB) or other remittance documents from Medi-Cal, which is the primary insurance company. The Board finds that VA could not process the claim as a secondary payer without these documents.

The Board has decided that the Veteran's application for PCAFC benefits was not properly notified of the denial and must be remanded to provide proper notice.

The Veteran's lumbar spine DJD/DDD with intervertebral disc syndrome at L5-S1 disability is rated at 20 percent from March 21, 2018.,Left lower extremity radiculopathy (femoral) has been granted an effective date of September 30, 2019.

The AOJ denied the Veteran's eligibility for PCAFC benefits due to a lack of evidence showing he needed continuous personal care services. The Board is remanding the case to provide proper notice and correct any errors in the decision.

The Board denied a compensable disability rating for PFB as the evidence did not show more than topical therapy required over the past 12-month period and at least one of the following: characteristic lesions involving less than 5 percent of the entire body affected; or characteristic lesions involving less than 5 percent of exposed areas affected.