Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient consideration of exposure to toxins during service and a need for a medical opinion regarding the relationship between infertility and such exposure.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to inadequate opinions regarding service connection for poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma of the lung, including as due to asbestos exposure. The Veteran's claim will be reviewed again with new medical opinions.

The Board has determined that there is a need to provide adequate notice and obtain additional records before making a decision on the Veteran's claim for payment of non-VA dental care.

Your appeal for payment of non-VA medical services provided on September 13, 2019 has been resolved by administrative action. The appeal is dismissed as the issue has been fully addressed.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to a pre-decisional duty to assist error and for determining at what rate the appellant received Chapter 33 education benefits from October 24, 2016 to October 30, 2017. The issue of entitlement to a waiver of recovery of overpayment of education benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill must also be remanded for adjudication on the merits.

The Board has remanded the case due to an inadequate VA medical opinion regarding the Veteran's service connection claim for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. The new opinion is needed to address whether the Veteran's military service, specifically exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam, caused or contributed to his idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for benign growths of the skin (venereal warts) was originally denied in a June 1972 rating decision. The appeal is dismissed due to procedural defects at the AOJ level.

The Board denied the Veteran's appeal as the withholding of VA disability compensation for the recoupment of 360 days of drill pay received in Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 was proper.

The appeal for the cause of the Veteran's death is dismissed due to his death while the appeal was pending.

The Board has dismissed the appeal as there is no administrative review process for disputes over contractual payment rates under Veterans Care Agreements (VCAs).

The Board dismissed the appeal as the claim was resolved in favor of the appellant through an administrative action that approved payment for medical services provided on January 23, 2018.

The Board has granted service connection for cause of death due to glioblastoma associated with herbicide exposure, finding that the Veteran's in-service exposure to herbicides likely caused his glioblastoma and thus contributed to his death.

The Board denied the appellant's request for eligibility to be buried in a VA national cemetery due to his service being classified as active duty training (ACDUTRA) and not meeting the legal criteria for veteran status.

The Veteran's claim for a higher level of special monthly compensation due to his service-connected blindness was denied because he does not require aid and attendance on a factual basis.

The AOJ denied the Veteran's eligibility for PCAFC benefits due to a lack of evidence showing he needed continuous personal care services. The Board is remanding the case to provide proper notice and correct any errors in the decision.

The Board has granted the claims for payment or reimbursement of medical services provided on July 23, 2019, and August 13, 2019, under CHAMPVA as they were timely filed.

The Veteran's initial rating for GVHD affecting the skin and maculopathy with keratopathy, cataracts, and pseudophakia remains at 60 percent. A separate 20 percent rating is granted for bilateral dry eye syndrome. TDIU is granted from September 1, 2023.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to a failure to obtain an etiological opinion regarding the Veteran's left foot gout, which is claimed as left foot pain. The Veteran was treated for left foot pain in January 2016 during service.

The Board has remanded the case due to a lack of VA Form 21-4142 for Dr. R.C., who is the Veteran's private physician treating his hypertension.

The Board has remanded the case due to a failure to provide proper notice about what evidence is needed to support the appellant's claim for recognition as the Veteran's surviving spouse.