Other conditions decisions — 2026

The Board has decided that the Veteran is not eligible for enrollment in the PCAFC program due to a determination that he does not require personal care services. The appeal is being remanded to correct errors and obtain a legally adequate medical decision.

The Board has decided to remand the claims for service connection due to incomplete records and will consider any new evidence submitted.

The Board has granted a maximum schedular rating of 100 percent for the Veteran's atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease with implanted pacemaker, effective February 1, 2024.

The Veteran's helpless child claim was denied as he did not provide any evidence demonstrating that his stepchild, K. S., was permanently incapable of self-support prior to turning age 18.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence and a need for further review, including a new opinion on whether the Veteran requires personal care services and if he is in the best interest of participating in the PCAFC program.

The Veteran's appeal for service connection for a skin condition, including dry skin scaling with irritation in groin and buttock areas, has been dismissed as the Veteran withdrew their appeal prior to the Board making a decision.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a deviated septum, finding that there is no evidence showing it was incurred or aggravated during his military service.

The Board has dismissed the appeals for effective dates earlier than October 6, 2017 for adding the Veteran's spouse and child to his VA disability compensation.

The Veteran's right foot hallux valgus has been granted an initial 10 percent disability rating, which is the maximum available under Diagnostic Code 5280. The condition was found to be severe enough to approximate amputation of the great toe.

The Veteran's request for an extension of his Chapter 30 educational assistance benefits delimiting date was denied because he did not file a request within the required one-year period after his disability ended, and there is no established good cause for the delay.

The appeal concerning eligibility to enroll in the VA's PCAFC program has been dismissed due to a withdrawal of the appeal by the appellant's authorized representative.

The Veteran's claims for effective dates of December 10, 2021 for the grant of service connection for bilateral hip iliotibial band friction syndrome have been granted.,The Veteran's claims for initial compensable disability ratings for bilateral hip iliotibial band friction syndrome are remanded pending implementation of the earlier effective dates.

The appeal was dismissed because a new decision recognized RN as the Veteran's dependent spouse before the Board could consider the issue.

The Veteran's appeal for service connection for dyspnea (breathing disorder) has been dismissed as the appellant requested withdrawal of the appeal.

The Veteran's claim for a clothing allowance for the calendar year 2022 is being remanded due to missing records. The AOJ needs to obtain and associate any relevant documents, including the decision denying his claim.

The Veteran's appeal was dismissed as their claim of a temporary total evaluation based on hospitalization over 21 days for a service-connected disability had already been fully granted in a previous rating decision.

The Board has determined that there was a pre-decisional duty to assist error and the case is remanded for an adequate medical decision regarding eligibility for PCAFC benefits.

The Veteran's claim of entitlement to Total Disability Rating Based on Individual Unemployability (TDIU) was previously granted by the Board, and a rating decision implemented this grant with an effective date of August 2, 2016. The current appeal is dismissed as it is duplicative of a previously adjudicated case.

The Board has remanded the case due to errors in obtaining relevant treatment records and inadequate medical opinions. The Veteran's eligibility for PCAFC benefits is being reviewed.

The Board has determined that the AOJ decision denying eligibility for PCAFC benefits was not in accordance with the correct legal standard and requires a remand to obtain an updated medical opinion and proper consideration of the parties' claim under the eligibility criteria set forth in 38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a).