Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has determined that the Veteran's multiple myeloma, which was presumed to be caused by herbicide agent exposure during service, was a contributing factor to his death. Therefore, the claim of service connection for cause of death is granted.

The Board has granted entitlement to individual unemployability (TDIU) from September 19, 2024, due to the Veteran's service-connected intracerebral hemorrhage with intraventricular hemorrhage and residuals precluding him from securing or following a substantially gainful occupation. Service connection for the condition was also granted.

Your claim for service connection for right hip bursitis has been granted, effective from the day after you separated from active duty. The appeal is dismissed as moot.

The Veteran's claim for special monthly compensation (SMC) at the aid and attendance and housebound rates is remanded due to a duty to assist error. The AOJ needs to schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to assess his need for regular aid and attendance.

The Board dismissed the appeal as there is no evidence of service connection for cause of death and DIC benefits were granted under 38 U.S.C. § 1318.

The Board granted the Appellant's request to replace the government-furnished grave headstone, as it now includes information about the Veteran's service in both the Spanish-American War and the Boxer Rebellion.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a deviated septum, finding that there is no evidence to support a link between his current condition and his military service.

The Veteran's surviving spouse was denied the opportunity to be recognized as a substitute party due to no pending claims or appeals at the time of his death.

The Board has remanded the claim for a total rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability (TDIU) prior to January 21, 2025. The RO's incomplete development efforts and inadequate VA examination are noted.

The Veteran's basic eligibility for Dependents' Educational Assistance based on permanent and total disability status prior to April 18, 2025 is denied as the current award of DEA benefits aligns with a date when the Veteran's combined disability rating rose to 100 percent.

The Board has found that readjudication of the previously denied claims of entitlement to service connection for a right hand disability and a bilateral eye disability is warranted. The AOJ will now consider these matters on their merits.

The Board has granted an earlier effective date of January 26, 2023 for the addition of the Veteran's spouse as a dependent to his VA disability compensation award. The decision is based on the Veteran notifying VA of his marriage within one year of the event and providing required information to complete his application.

The Veteran's appeal concerning aid and attendance and housebound compensation has been dismissed due to their death.

The Veteran's appeal was dismissed because she withdrew her request for a hearing and stated that her concerns have been addressed.

The Veteran's appeal for reimbursement of travel expenses for medical services has been dismissed due to their death.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal for VR&E benefits, so the case is dismissed.

The Veteran's claim for an effective date prior to October 1, 2022, for the addition of his spouse as a dependent to his VA disability compensation was denied. The Board found that the evidence did not demonstrate that VA received notice of the Veteran's marriage within one year of the qualifying disability rating issued in April 2018.

The Veteran's attempts to appeal the April 24, 2023 decision granting service connection for history of stroke were not timely filed and dismissed.

The Board has decided that the Veteran does not meet the eligibility criteria for PCAFC benefits due to a lack of personal care services and supervision. The decision is remanded as there are insufficient medical opinions provided.

The Veteran's appeal for a motorized scooter was denied because the VHA determined he did not meet cognitive criteria to operate one, despite his son's belief that it would improve his quality of life. The Board found the cognitive test insufficient and noted the Veteran's death prevented any reassessment.