Other conditions decisions — 2026

The Board denied entitlement to service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death, finding that there was no evidence linking his service-connected conditions or herbicide exposure to his death.

The Veteran's service-connected intervertebral disc degeneration (IVDS) with disc extrusion has been granted a disability rating of 40 percent, effective February 24, 2011. The decision also found that the Veteran does not have ankylosis or any episodes of acute signs and symptoms requiring bed rest prescribed by a physician in the past twelve months.

Your appeal for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) has been dismissed due to the Veteran's death. The Board cannot decide the merits of your claim as the appeal is no longer pending.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's HIV is related to his military service and grants the claim for service connection.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's pilonidal cyst with residuals is service-connected, as there is a balance of positive and negative evidence supporting this conclusion.

The Veteran's duodenal ulcer was restored to a 40 percent evaluation, effective April 13, 2025. The Board found that the reduction from 40 percent to 0 percent was improper and granted restoration of the rating.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for muscle tissue damage and a rating in excess of 30 percent for residuals of left nephrectomy, finding no current diagnosis or relationship to service.

The Board has granted service connection for the Veteran's left hand disability, finding that it had its onset during service and is related to the two fractures sustained there. The decision resolves doubt in favor of the Veteran.

The Veteran's interstitial lung fibrosis/pulmonary fibrosis was not rated higher than 30 percent prior to April 25, 2019, and not rated higher than 60 percent from that date. The Board denied both requests for increased evaluations.

The Board has remanded the case due to non-compliance with previous instructions for developing a claim of total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) prior to February 19, 2010. The Appellant was not provided with the necessary forms and information.

The Board denied the request for an earlier effective date for a survivor's pension because the surviving spouse's net worth exceeded the $138,489 limit set by regulation as of August 17, 2022. The appellant argued that medical expenses should have been deducted from her assets to bring her net worth below the limit, but this was not possible due to income exceeding unreimbursed medical expenses.

The appeal of the eligibility for the Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC) is dismissed due to an extension of eligibility.

The Veteran's eligibility for enrollment in the VA Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC) was denied because they died before their application could be fully evaluated and approved.

The Board has remanded the case to consider whether a separate compensable rating is warranted for dysesthesias in the right hand due to service-connected diabetes mellitus, type II.

The Veteran's spouse, M., and children, M. Jr. and M., were recognized as dependents for VA benefits purposes during the appeal period. The appeal was dismissed due to a full grant of the benefits sought.

The Board has determined that the November 2022 Caregiver Support Program Team decision and the November 2022 CEAT review are legally inadequate to support the denial of benefits for eligibility under VA's PCAFC program. The matter is REMANDED for a new medical determination considering all medical information of record and containing an adequate rationale for the determination.

The Board has decided that the Veteran does not have eligibility to enroll in the PCAFC program based on his October 2020 application. The decision is remanded because VA did not provide proper notice as required by law.

The Board has remanded the case due to errors in duty to assist and for additional medical opinions regarding service connection and rating.

The Board has determined that the AOJ failed to obtain a VA examination and/or opinion due to a pre-decisional duty to assist error, as the Veteran's participation in a TERA is presumed. The case is now remanded for scheduling a VA examination.

The Veteran's apportionment of $183 per month to the appellant for the benefit of their children, N.P. and A.P., was increased to 20 percent of his VA disability compensation due to insufficient support.