Other conditions decisions — 2026

The Board has identified a duty-to-assist error in the March 2025 decision and requires an updated medical opinion from the Centralized Eligibility and Appeals Team (CEAT) to determine if the Veteran is eligible for PCAFC benefits.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's net worth did not exceed the pension limit and he met the criteria for special monthly pension at the aid and attendance rating. Therefore, his claim is granted.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to miscommunication between the Veteran and the AOJ regarding his residency at A./S. Senior Living Facility, leading to an overpayment of $24,599.36. The decision is pending further investigation and clarification from A./S.

The Board has granted service connection for left index finger ankylosis, finding that the Veteran's current disability is causally related to a laceration injury sustained during service.

The Board denied the Veteran's request to add his stepchild, J.Y., as a dependent for VA disability compensation benefits due to insufficient evidence of a valid marriage between the Veteran and his current spouse, J.N.

The Board denied service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death, finding that his heart condition was not related to his military service and could not be presumed due to herbicide exposure. The Board also found insufficient evidence linking his heart condition to asbestos exposure during service.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal for eligibility to benefits under the Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC). The Board dismissed the appeal as a result.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient medical opinions regarding the Veteran's cause of death and its relationship to service, including his various cancers and cancer treatments.

The Board has decided that the claim for ambulance transportation reimbursement needs further review and additional evidence is required to make a determination.

The Veteran's eligibility for the Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC) is being remanded due to a lack of adequate review and consideration of his need for personal care services.

The Veteran's service connection for leukemia, characterized as CLL, was improperly severed. Service connection for T-cell LGL leukemia is restored. The severance of service connection for NHL is upheld.

The Veteran's VR&E benefits were denied as he did not meet the criteria for an employment handicap due to his service-connected disabilities, and was therefore not in need of rehabilitation.

The Veteran's claim for additional SMC based on the loss of use of his hands and feet is denied as there is no evidence showing that he has functional loss in both hands or feet such that they would be equally well served by amputation with a prosthesis.

The Veteran was incarcerated and his VA benefits were reduced. The appellant demonstrated individual need in providing for her basic necessities during the incarceration, leading to a 30 percent apportionment of the withheld benefits.

The Veteran's lumbar spine condition was evaluated at a 10 percent rating prior to November 8, 2023 and upgraded to a 20 percent rating thereafter. The Board found that the evidence did not meet the criteria for a higher evaluation.

The Veteran's cause of death due to high grade glioblastoma is denied because the evidence does not establish sufficient exposure to ionizing radiation during service to have caused his condition.

The Veteran's appeal for a rating in excess of 10 percent for left hallux valgus, status post lapidus skin bunionectomy with internal fixation of metatarsophalangeal joint is dismissed as the Veteran withdrew her appeal.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal, so the case is dismissed.

The Board denied the Veteran's request for a waiver of overpayment of VA compensation benefits, finding that recovery would not be against equity and good conscience.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to pre-decisional errors in notifying the Veteran of his changes in marital status, which may affect the validity of the overpayment debt. The AOJ needs to adjudicate whether the $16,194.10 overpayment was validly created and provide a description of the basis for the overpayment.