Other conditions decisions — 2026

The Veteran's initial claim for a 60 percent rating for fecal incontinence was granted. The effective date of Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) based on permanent and total disability status is set at February 26, 2020. The earlier effective date for service connection for fecal incontinence prior to August 16, 2019, is denied.

The Board has determined that the Veteran is not in need of personal care services or supervision, instruction, and protection. The appeal must be remanded for further review by the AOJ.

The Board denied attorney fees for past-due benefits awarded in the June 2025 rating decision because the fee agreement did not cover original claims of service connection or requests for higher-level review.

The Board has determined that the VHA's decision denying eligibility for PCAFC was based on invalid legal criteria and remands the case to allow VA to consider the Veteran's claim under the correct eligibility criteria.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for malignant hyperthermia is granted due to the submission of new and relevant evidence, including an article from the Mayo Clinic indicating that malignant hyperthermia could be the result of a random genetic change (rather than an inherited condition).

The Veteran's recurrent pharyngitis, previously characterized as post-tonsillectomy residuals, is now rated at a 10 percent disability level. The condition is accompanied by hoarseness and inflammation of the throat.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient notice provided in the August 2025 decisions and lack of information regarding partial payments for non-VA medications. The Veteran's copayment status needs to be addressed as well.

The Board has granted the Veteran's claim for service connection for his cause of death, finding that his mast cell leukemia was etiologically related to his conceded exposure to Agent Orange. The immediate cause of his death was mast cell leukemia.

The Veteran's former spouse was removed from his VA disability compensation award due to their divorce on May 10, 2021. The appeal for restoration of the dependent allowance is denied.

The Veteran's appeal of the October 18, 2024 letter regarding his hypercholesterolemia claim was dismissed due to procedural errors.

The Veteran's claims of service connection for various conditions have been remanded due to the need for a Statement of the Case (SOC) addressing her July 2018 Notice of Disagreement.

The Veteran's claim for special monthly compensation based on the need for regular aid and attendance is being remanded due to a duty to assist error. The Board cannot consider evidence submitted after the July 2024 rating decision, but any relevant VA treatment records from January 2023 to present will be obtained.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to a failure of VA to provide a VA examination for the Veteran's mental health condition, which could be related to his service-connected polyneuropathy.

The Board has decided to remand the case for further development and consideration, including obtaining a new medical opinion from the CEAT regarding eligibility for PCAFC benefits.

The Veteran's claim for a compensable initial rating for pulmonary embolism was denied, but he was granted TDIU based on his service-connected disabilities. The Board found that the Veteran's service-connected conditions precluded him from securing or following substantially gainful employment.

The Board has determined that the decision on eligibility for PCAFC was not legally adequate and requires further review to ensure proper notice is provided to the Veteran.

The Veteran seeks recognition of A.M. as his child for the purpose of additional dependency compensation due to permanent incapacity for self-support prior to attaining age 18. The Board finds that additional development is needed and remands the case.

The Veteran's claim for PCAFC benefits is being remanded due to errors in the original decision and a need for new medical opinions. The AOJ must provide complete notice of the decision as required by law, including elements such as identification of findings favorable to the claimant, identification of elements not satisfied leading to the denial, and an explanation of how to obtain or access evidence used in making the decision.

The Veteran's eligibility for the PCAFC program has been extended until a later reassessment, so his appeal is dismissed.

The appeal contesting eligibility to the award of fees based on past-due benefits awarded in a July 23, 2025 rating decision is granted. The fee agreement does not contain the Veteran's VA file number and thus is invalid.