Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has dismissed the appeal as it pertains to a contractual payment rate for medical services provided by Ama de Llaves Menonita during March 2020, due to the specific dispute resolution process established under VCA (Veterans Care Agreement) which does not include review by the Board.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a right eye disability, other than cataracts and/or glaucoma, finding no evidence of an in-service injury or event related to his current right eye disabilities.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to duty-to-assist errors and insufficient evidence regarding the Veteran's spinal arthritis.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to procedural errors and insufficient consideration of new evidence regarding the reduction of nonservice-connected pension benefits effective February 1, 2020.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for future burial/interment in a VA national cemetery because his service did not meet the minimum active duty requirements to be eligible.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for educational assistance benefits under Chapter 33 of Title 38, as she did not meet the eligibility criteria for Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits due to her service not meeting the required minimum of 90 days after September 10, 2001.

The appeal regarding additional VA educational assistance benefits beyond the Veteran's August 11, 2018 delimiting date is dismissed due to untimely filing of a notice of disagreement.

The Board found that both attorneys, C.W. and J.W., provided reasonable representation but split the fee based on their respective periods of representation.

The Veteran's claim for a separate compensable disability rating for white matter disease was denied as the symptoms are already accounted for by his existing headache disability.

The Board has remanded the case due to a duty-to-assist error in providing adequate notice of a hearing before VA.

The Board has determined that the claims file is incomplete and requires additional records to be uploaded for consideration. The Veteran's eligibility for future burial in a VA national cemetery will be reconsidered.

The Board has decided that the Veteran is not eligible for benefits under the Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC). The decision was based on a June 2021 review by the Centralized Eligibility and Appeals Team (CEAT), which found that the Veteran did not meet the eligibility requirements. The Board has now remanded the case to allow for a new medical opinion and a re-evaluation of the criteria for PCAFC benefits.

The Veteran's eligibility for Post-9/10 GI Bill educational assistance expired on March 14, 2023. The Board denied the extension of this period due to lack of applicable circumstances.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for sexual dysfunction (claimed as dyspareunia) is granted due to the submission of new and relevant evidence. The case is remanded for a VA examination.

The appeal has been dismissed as the VA has administratively approved the claim for payment of non-VA medical services provided by Ambulance and Chair EMS, Inc. on October 4, 2020, and October 11, 2020.

The Veteran's appeal for payment or reimbursement of non-VA medical services provided on June 18, 2014 has been dismissed because the Veteran withdrew his appeal.

The Board has granted compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for additional right eye disability caused by procedures performed by VA providers, finding that VA failed to diagnose and treat the Veteran's preexisting conditions properly.

The Veteran's chronic adjustment disorder, with alcohol and marijuana abuse, is rated at 70% from September 15, 2009. He also received a grant of TDIU based on his service-connected disability.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to new medical treatise evidence submitted by the appellant's representative, which requires AOJ review before a final decision can be made.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to lack of substantial compliance with previous directives and because an advisory medical opinion from a rheumatologist is required to clarify the etiology of the Veteran's claimed Sjogren's syndrome.