Other conditions decisions — 2026

The Veteran's application for enrollment in the PCAFC was denied due to insufficient medical evidence supporting her need for personal care services. The Board has decided to remand the case, requiring a new medical opinion that addresses the eligibility criteria under 38 C.F.R. § 71.20.

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

The Board has denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for left elbow strain, right elbow strain, and cubital tunnel syndrome as there is no evidence of a disease or injury incurred during active duty or reserve training.

The Veteran's appeal for benefits under the Department of Veterans Affairs' Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC) is dismissed because their eligibility has been extended and will be reassessed at a later time.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for chronic adjustment disorder is being remanded due to the need for a VA examination and medical opinion.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to an incomplete medical opinion and a need for further examination.

The Veteran's appeal for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities has been dismissed as the Veteran and his representative have withdrawn their appeal.

The Veteran's initial claim for a higher evaluation of his insomnia disorder was granted, with an effective date of May 9, 2019.

The Board has denied service connection for cholelithiasis, status post cholecystectomy and voiding dysfunction, claimed as urinary frequency. The evidence does not support a finding that these conditions are related to the Veteran's active service or toxic exposure risk activities.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to inadequate medical opinions regarding the etiology of the Veteran's neurogenic bowel and bladder condition, which may be related to her service-connected fibromyalgia.

The Board has determined that a new medical opinion is needed to clarify the basis for the denial of the Veteran's PCAFC eligibility, and additional notice must be provided regarding what evidence or argument could support an appeal.

The Board denied the Veteran's eligibility for benefits under the PCAFC program due to a lack of evidence showing he requires personal care services each time he completes an activity of daily living (ADL).

The Board has remanded the case due to a duty to assist error regarding the Veteran's employment records from Social Security Administration. The claim for total disability based on individual unemployability will be reconsidered.

The Veteran is reasonably discharging his responsibilities to U.D.N., and the appellant has not demonstrated hardship. Therefore, apportionment of the Veteran's VA disability compensation on behalf of the parties' child is denied.

The Board has dismissed the appeal as to the claim of entitlement to an effective date earlier than May 26, 2021 for the award of a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability (TDIU). The July 2023 decision is final and binding with respect to this issue.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's colon cancer is not related to his service, including exposure to herbicide agents. The evidence does not support a finding of service connection for this condition.

The Veteran's eligibility for enrollment in the VA PCAFC program was denied due to a lack of explanation in the December 2023 CEAT opinion. The Board has ordered remand to obtain a new medical opinion from the CEAT.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to a delay in processing and potential administrative error, but the validity of the debt amount is still under review.

The appellant's claim for VA death benefits is denied as they do not meet the criteria for eligibility due to their age and lack of incapacity for support.

The Board has determined that a legally adequate medical decision is needed for the eligibility of the Veteran and his wife to enroll in the VA Caregiver Program. The CEAT's decision was overly conclusive without sufficient supporting explanation or reference to specific medical findings.