Other conditions decisions — 2024

The appeal was dismissed because the claim for payment of non-VA medical services provided on December 23, 2020, was administratively approved while this appeal was pending.

The Board has dismissed the appeal for payment of non-VA medical care provided by Aegis Sciences Corporation on February 11, 2021 due to a lack of prior authorization and because the process for billing under the VCCP does not allow for Board review.

The Board has granted service connection for polycythemia vera blood cancer and remanded the secondary service connection claim for subarachnoid hemorrhage with stroke as secondary to polycythemia vera blood cancer.

The Board has dismissed the appeal because it does not have authority to review disputes related to Veterans Care Agreements (VCAs), including disagreements over payment rates. The appellant's request for additional payment under a VCA is therefore dismissed.

The Veteran's PTSD was initially denied, but a higher evaluation of 70% was granted for the period from December 17, 2020. The decision also noted that the Veteran had occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas.

The Veteran's colon cancer is granted service connection under the PACT Act, which provides presumptive service connection for gastrointestinal cancers including colon cancer due to exposure to burn pits and other toxins.

The Board dismissed the appeal concerning payment for non-VA medical services provided to the Veteran from February 18, 2020, to February 28, 2020. The dispute was resolved through a specific administrative process under VA regulations that does not allow for further review by the Board.

The Board denied the claims for payment of non-VA medical expenses incurred on January 4, 2021; January 28, 2021; and February 1, 2021 due to lack of VA authorization.

The appeal was dismissed as the proposed rating decision from the RO was not a final decision and the Notice of Disagreement was premature.

The Veteran's appeals for service connection were dismissed due to their death.

The Board dismissed the appeal as it does not have jurisdiction to decide the appeal due to the Veteran's Community Care Program (VCCP) services being rendered from May 1, 2020, to May 29, 2020.

The appeal is denied as there was no VA authorization for the non-VA medical services provided on December 28, 2020.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to inadequate VA examination and opinion regarding service connection for intervertebral disc syndrome. The Veteran's claim will be reconsidered with a new examination.

The appeal is dismissed as the AOJ administratively approved the Appellant's claim for payment of the cost of medical care provided to the Veteran on September 20, 2019.

The appeal is dismissed as the claim for payment of non-VA hospital care provided to the Veteran from April 27, 2019 through July 2, 2019 has been resolved by administrative action.

The Board has remanded the case due to a pre-decisional duty to assist error regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran's fibrocystic breasts. The examiner is asked to clarify any and all diagnoses, determine if they are diseases or disabilities, and opine as to whether any diagnosed conditions had their onset during service.

The Veteran's service connection claim for basal cell carcinoma is granted, and the Board has remanded the claims of actinic keratoses and seborrheic keratoses due to a lack of an adequate opinion regarding their etiology.

The Board has determined that there was a duty to assist error and the case must be remanded for further action, including obtaining the Veteran's military personnel file and determining if he had service in Southwest Asia. An addendum opinion is needed to assess the etiology and pathophysiology of his joint pain (neck) disorder.

The Board has decided that the claim for payment or reimbursement of non-VA emergency medical services provided on July 20, 2016 is not clear and must be remanded to provide a decision notice adhering to all applicable laws.

The Board dismissed the appeal because the appellant withdrew their request for review of the payment for ambulance services.