Other conditions decisions — 2026

The Board has ordered a VA examination to determine if the Veteran's eye disabilities, including myopia with eye strain and saccadic eye movement disorder, are related to service or service-connected conditions. The case is being remanded for this purpose.

The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate medical opinions and procedural issues, requiring further examination or opinion regarding functional loss consistent with ankylosis.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for breast reduction surgery, finding that her bilateral mammoplasty resulted in a loss of at least 25 percent of tissue from either breast or both breasts. The Board also found no additional disability other than what has been granted (breast reduction surgical scars).

The Veteran's service connection claims for a visual disorder, hearing loss, and psychiatric disorder have been denied. The Board found no evidence of in-service injury or disease that caused these conditions.,Service connection was not granted because the Veteran's strabismic amblyopia is considered a congenital defect without superimposed condition, cataracts are due to age, and blepharitis is related to age.

The Veteran's appeal for an increased rating of nephrolithiasis is remanded due to the need for a new VA examination and retrospective opinion.

The appeal regarding travel expenses is dismissed due to the Veteran's death.

The Board denied service connection for a prostate disorder, finding that the Veteran's prostate cancer was not incurred in or caused by his military service.

The Board denied service connection for right-hand and left-hand disorders, finding that the evidence does not support a link between these conditions and active service.,Both hands were diagnosed with Dupuytren's contracture and arthritis, but the Board concluded that these conditions are more likely due to post-service cumulative wear and tear rather than in-service events.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for loss of smell, finding that there was no evidence showing a present disability and no nexus to military service or any service-connected condition.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal regarding the left foot fracture claim, and the Board has dismissed it.

The Board denied revision of the July 1994 rating decision that denied service connection for incontinence and a bladder condition, finding no clear and unmistakable error.

The Board has granted earlier effective dates of September 1, 2023 for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU), basic eligibility for Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) under 38 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and special monthly compensation (SMC).

The Board has determined that the validity of an overpayment debt in the amount of $11,435.33 for payment of a monthly 'kicker' is at issue and requires further review due to incomplete documentation.

The Veteran's claim for reimbursement of ambulance transportation to a VA Medical Center on July 1, 2024 was denied because it was received more than 30 days after the travel. The appeal is dismissed.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims of service connection for left and right elbow tendinitis due to a duty-to-assist error, requiring a VA examination.

The Board has determined that the July 2021 decision denying eligibility for PCAFC benefits was not legally adequate and requires remand. The AOJ must obtain a medical opinion from the CEAT regarding the Veteran's need for personal care services, supervision, or instruction. Additionally, the AOJ must provide compliant notice under 38 U.S.C. § 5104.

The Board dismissed the appeal because the appellant requested to withdraw it before a decision was made.

The Board has determined that the AOJ's decision was based on a pre-decisional error and requires further review of the Veteran's eligibility for PCAFC benefits, including an assessment of his current functional status.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to an unclear calculation of past-due benefits and attorney fees, specifically whether there was a prior offset for the Veteran's debt.

The Veteran's claim for beneficiary travel expenses for the cost of ambulance transportation to a VA Medical Center on January 28, 2025 was denied because he did not meet the criteria for entitlement to beneficiary travel benefits. The evidence showed that his annual income exceeded the maximum annual pension rate (MAPR) and he had no service-connected disabilities.