Other conditions decisions — 2024

The Veteran seeks service connection for chronic vascular deficiency and lymphedema, which he asserts is related to his duties as a track vehicle mechanic. The Board finds the evidence currently meets the low threshold for obtaining a VA examination as to this claim and remands for such an examination.

The Board has remanded the case due to new evidence being added since the last decision, and the AOJ needs to review this new information before making a final determination.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete verification of the Veteran's periods of active duty and active duty for training service after September 10, 2001. The AOJ is instructed to contact DoD to verify all such periods and provide the specific dates of qualifying and nonqualifying service.

The Veteran's appeal has been dismissed due to their death. The Board does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this case as they are no longer alive.

The Veteran's varicose veins of both lower extremities are currently rated at 40 percent each, and the Board finds that a higher rating is not warranted based on the evidence of record.

The Veteran's left arm ruptured distal bicep tendon disability has been rated at 30 percent since March 27, 2011. The Board found the current symptoms do not warrant a higher rating.

The Board has remanded the case due to a missing hearing transcript and for scheduling a new hearing. The Veteran's entitlement to education benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill-Selected Reserve, Chapter 1606, Title 10, United States Code is being reviewed.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete medical opinions and need for additional development, including obtaining a VA examination.

The Board has granted service connection for memory impairment and neurocognitive disorder as secondary to the Veteran's service-connected PTSD. Service connection for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) was denied.

The Board denied the appellant's claims for benefits under both 38 U.S.C. § 1815 and 38 U.S.C. § 1805, finding that he does not meet the legal criteria to qualify for these benefits due to lack of evidence of a form or manifestation of spina bifida.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for an eye disability and CRPS, claimed as a right hand condition, were denied. The issue of TDIU was deemed moot due to the Veteran being in receipt of a combined 100% rating for the entire period on appeal.

The Board has remanded the case due to procedural issues, including a need for another TDIU development letter and ensuring full representation rights are upheld.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient information regarding whether the Veteran's Bell's palsy is at least as likely as not caused or aggravated by his service-connected diabetes.

The Veteran's sickle cell anemia with retinopathy is granted a 60 percent rating from April 26, 2017 to April 27, 2021.,A total disability rating based on individual unemployability and Dependents' Educational Assistance are also granted.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a dental disability for compensation purposes, finding that there is no current diagnosis of any compensable dental or oral condition.

The Board has remanded the claims for service connection for restless leg syndrome, a blood disorder (idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura), and systemic lupus erythematosus due to potential herbicide exposure during active duty. The VA is required to obtain supplemental medical opinions addressing these issues.

The Board has granted service connection for the Veteran's schwannoma, finding that it is related to his exposure to herbicide agents during his active-duty service in Vietnam.

The Veteran's claims for a higher rating for hypertensive cardiomyopathy and TDIU are being remanded due to the need for updated VA treatment records and a more contemporaneous examination of his condition.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings for patellofemoral pain syndrome of the right knee, tinea pedis of the right foot, and tinea pedis of the left foot were denied. The Board found that the evidence did not support a finding of current disability or sufficient functional impairment to warrant higher ratings.

The Board denied the Appellant's claim for DIC benefits as she did not meet the criteria of a surviving spouse, and her statements regarding cohabitation were found to be inconsistent.