Other conditions decisions — 2024

The appeal is dismissed because the claim falls under a jurisdictional defect and does not fall within the Board's authority to review.

The Veteran's eligibility for benefits under the PCAFC program is remanded due to a legally inadequate medical decision. The Board requests a more detailed and thoroughly explained medical opinion regarding personal care services needs.

The Veteran's appeal for an earlier effective date and a higher rating for his service-connected residuals of abdominal injury was denied. The maximum schedular rating (30%) is assigned, which cannot be increased further under the applicable diagnostic code.

Your appeal for payment or reimbursement of non-VA medical services provided on August 12, 2020 has been dismissed as your claim was granted in full.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete records, specifically LeFeather HomeCare records from February 2020 to the present. The Veteran's SMC claim will be readjudicated after these records are obtained and associated with the file.

The Board dismissed the appeal as the Veteran's warrant for fugitive felon status had been cleared, and her benefits were reinstated.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, finding that there was no evidence to support a link between his in-service exposure and the development of the condition.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient medical opinion regarding the Veteran's basal cell carcinoma and actinic keratosis, specifically related to service exposure.

The Board has decided that the notification of the decision was legally inadequate and there is a pre-decisional duty to assist error. The case is being remanded for an adequate medical decision.

The Veteran withdrew their appeal, and the Board has dismissed it.

The Veteran's appeal for TDIU was dismissed as moot because the AOJ had already granted a TDIU rating during the pendency of the appeal.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's claim for service connection for a neurobehavioral condition, including as due to contaminated water exposure at Camp Lejeune, should be remanded for further development and consideration. The new evidence received since the last decision is relevant to this issue.

The Board denied service connection for vocal cord leukoplakia with dysplasia and residual hoarseness as a throat condition for purposes of accrued benefits, finding that the Veteran's post-service throat disability was not related to his in-service herbicide exposure.

The Veteran's claim for TDIU is remanded due to the need for a medical opinion discussing her service-connected peritoneal adhesive disease and its impact on her ability to work.

The effective date for the multiple grants of service connection in June 2017 is denied as it should be September 1, 2016.

The Board has remanded this case for an addendum opinion to address the Veteran's claims of service connection for residuals of a traumatic brain injury, including orbital fracture, concussion, hypoplastic right maxillary sinus, and TMJ dysfunction. The addendum opinion should consider the significance of CT scan findings from prior examinations.

The Board has determined that additional evidence should be obtained before the claims for a compensable rating for bilateral dry eye syndrome prior to August 4, 2021, and for a rating in excess of 20 percent for bilateral dry eye syndrome from August 4, 2021, are decided. The TDIU claim is also remanded.

The Board has remanded the claims for service connection due to new evidence obtained since the October 2022 Supplemental Statement of the Case. The Veteran is required to respond to the SSOC before the case can be returned to the Board.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a skin disability, diagnosed as actinic keratosis, finding that there was no evidence of a nexus between his current condition and his active duty service.

The Board has remanded the claims for service connection for joint pain and sinus condition due to insufficient medical opinions. The Veteran's assertions of in-service onset and continuity of symptoms are not addressed.