Other conditions decisions — 2024

The Veteran's appeal for recognition of D.P. as the helpless child of the Veteran on the basis of permanent incapacity for self-support prior to attaining the age of 18 was dismissed due to a procedural error in docketing the appeal.

The Board dismissed the appeal as the claim for payment of non-VA medical services provided on August 8, 2020 was resolved in full by administrative action.

The Board has dismissed the appeals seeking payment for medical services provided through VA's Community Care program from June 9, 2020, to June 30, 2020. The process for billing and resolving such claims is governed by contractual agreements between VA and non-VA healthcare providers, and does not allow for Board review.

The Veteran's service connection claim for a bilateral eye disorder, including vision loss, is denied as refractive error of the eyes is not considered a disability for which service connection can be granted.

The Veteran was granted service connection for pneumothorax with an effective date of December 30, 2021.,Service connection for intercostal neuralgia was also granted with the same effective date.

The Veteran's spouse, the appellant, is not entitled to an apportionment of the Veteran's VA benefits due to their shared residence.

The Veteran's left arm disability is being remanded due to procedural issues, and the claim will be reconsidered with any new evidence submitted.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for urinary dysfunction, claimed as secondary to his service-connected sleep apnea, is being remanded due to duty-to-assist errors. The Board requires a VA examination by a urologist to determine if the Veteran's urinary dysfunction was caused or aggravated by his service-connected sleep apnea.

The appeal seeking payment for medical services provided on November 16, 2019 is dismissed because the claim was previously approved by TriWest.

The Board denied a compensable rating for loss of maxilla, finding that the Veteran's condition did not meet the criteria for a higher rating as his maxilla loss was less than 25% and replaceable by prosthesis.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for left foot disabilities, finding that there was no evidence of a nexus between his current left foot conditions and his active duty service.

The appeal for entitlement to specially adapted housing has been dismissed due to the appellant's withdrawal of the appeal.

The Board has decided that the Veteran's claim for an annual clothing allowance for the 2020 calendar year is remanded due to missing relevant documents from VHA. The AOJ needs to reconstruct the record and associate all pertinent records before it at the time of the VHA decision.

The appellant withdrew her appeal for apportionment of the Veteran's disability benefits, and the case is dismissed as a result.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities did not render her unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation at the time of the July 2022 rating decision, as she had been working full-time as a psychology counselor until recently retiring.

The Board has granted the appellant's claim for survivor pension benefits. The appeal of special monthly pension based on need for aid and attendance is remanded.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's timely substantive appeal for a TDIU was received, and the claim is granted. The AOJ must docket the issue of entitlement to TDIU under docket number 15-33653, issue an SSOC with consideration of all evidence of record, and return this legacy appeal to the Board for further adjudication.

The Veteran's right middle finger disability is granted an increased rating of 30 percent, but not greater, for pain, numbness, and limited motion causing reduced grip strength.

The Board dismissed the Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date prior to July 12, 2017 for his grant of total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) as there was no continuous pursuit under AMA and the decision is final.

The Veteran was initially awarded Level 2 benefits under the PCAFC program. As he and his caregiver-spouse were already receiving the maximum benefit, the claim for a higher level of stipend is dismissed as moot.