Other conditions decisions — 2024

The Board dismissed the appeal because the Veteran elected to waive his military pay for drill days in FY 2019, resulting in no overpayment and no withholding of VA compensation.

The Board has determined that the decision regarding personal care services eligibility is legally inadequate and requires further explanation. The case is being remanded for a more detailed medical opinion.

The Veteran's claim for a rating in excess of 10 percent for his service-connected intermittent explosive disorder has been denied. The claims for service connection for right hip disability and TDIU have also been denied.

The Veteran's cause of death, metastatic carcinoma of unknown primary, is found to be related to his presumed exposure to herbicide agents during service in Vietnam. The Board grants service connection for the cause of death.

The Board found that the appellant was insane at the time of his misconduct, which lifted the statutory bar to VA benefits and granted the appeal.

The Veteran withdrew their appeal before the Board could make a decision, so the case is dismissed.

The Board dismissed the appeal regarding the termination of helpless child benefits because the appellant withdrew her appeal through her fiduciary in June 2021.

The appeal to terminate the apportionment of Veteran's VA compensation benefits is dismissed because the Veteran did not file a timely Notice of Disagreement (NOD) with the February 2015 decision.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for hypophosphatemic osteomalacia was denied in February 2009 and again in February 2017. He filed a supplemental claim on July 17, 2023, which led to the grant of service connection with an effective date of July 17, 2023.

The Board dismissed the appeal as the VA approved payment for non-VA medical services provided during a specific episode of care, and no further action is needed.

The Board has decided to remand the claim for payment or reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on January 24, 2019, at a non-VA medical provider under CHAMPVA due to an error in the original decision.

The Board has remanded the case due to a failure to consider new evidence and provide a medical opinion regarding the Veteran's exposure to herbicides during service, which may be related to his cardiomyopathy.

The decision is remanded due to incomplete file, legally inadequate notification of the decision, and a pre-decisional duty to assist error. The eligibility for PCAFC benefits is also remanded for an adequate medical decision.

The Board dismissed the appeal because the claim for payment of non-VA medical services provided on August 17, 2020 was administratively approved and paid.

The Board has decided that the Veteran's claim for travel expenses related to a specific appointment (TC202307014636068) cannot be decided without additional development of the record, as there is insufficient information provided. The case is being sent back to the AOJ for further action.

The Board dismissed the appeal as the VA approved payment for non-VA medical services provided during a specific episode of care, and no further action is needed.

The Board has granted the restoration of the Veteran's stepchildren, H.M. and S.M., to his VA disability compensation award effective December 21, 2016, based on their status as biological children under the age of 18 who were members of his household.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for service connection due to insufficient medical opinions regarding his claimed conditions and their relationship to military service. The issues include psychiatric disorders, including PTSD, insomnia disorder, mild cognitive disorder, and nightmare disorder; and a low back disorder.

The Veteran's petition to reopen the claim for service connection for a left ear disability was dismissed as he withdrew his appeal.,The Veteran's petition to reopen the claim for residuals of concussion was granted.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities do not render him unable to obtain and maintain substantially gainful employment, so his claim for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability is denied.