Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has decided to remand the case due to a duty-to-assist error, specifically regarding an injury during INACDUTRA in November 2013. The Veteran's left ankle conditions are being reviewed again with new evidence.

The Board denied a compensable evaluation for the Veteran's left testicle varicocele, finding that there was no evidence of atrophy or removal of both testicles to warrant such an evaluation.

The Veteran's death was not service-connected, and thus he is not eligible for nonservice-connected burial benefits.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's right leg amputation is etiologically related to his active service, and therefore grants entitlement to service connection for this condition.

The Board denied the Veteran's request for an earlier effective date of October 20, 2021 for his spouse M. as a dependent because the earliest claim was made in October 2021 and not within one year of the marriage.

The Veteran's application for PCAFC benefits was denied due to a lack of personal care services and the denial did not meet statutory duty notification requirements. The case is remanded for further action including providing proper notice, obtaining a new medical opinion from CEAT, and considering additional evidence.

The Veteran's claim for a higher disability rating for reflux esophagitis and hiatus hernia is being remanded due to the failure to consider his private medical records from Dr. J.M.

The Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder is manifested by occupational and social impairment in most areas, warranting a 70 percent rating. The criteria for a higher rating are not met.

The Board has determined that additional evidence is needed to determine the etiology of the Veteran's right and left elbow disabilities, as well as his tongue disability. The case will be remanded for further examination and opinion.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral hand joint pain due to inadequate examination and duty to assist error.

The appeal is dismissed because the claim for payment of non-VA medical care provided on December 24, 2020, was administratively approved and the appellant was reimbursed in full.

The Board has remanded the case due to a new law requiring VA to provide an examination and opinion regarding the Veteran's diverticulitis, which may be related to his service in the Gulf War.

The service member's active duty period was less than two years, and she did not meet the eligibility criteria for burial in a VA national cemetery. The appeal is denied.

The Board has remanded the case due to an error in the July 2019 VA examination and opinion, which inaccurately concluded that post-service treatment did not show a cardiac disability. The Veteran's current diagnosed disabilities include atrial septal aneurysm (ASA), heart murmur, early systolic grade II-VI murmur, mitral valve regurgitation/insufficiency, valvular regurgitation, and unstable angina.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal, and the Board dismissed it.

The Veteran's claim for an effective date prior to October 10, 2023, for PCAFC eligibility is dismissed as it is considered a duplicate of the existing appeal.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for additional accrued benefits of her mother, finding she is not a child and thus not entitled to receive the remaining $10,566 in pension benefits. The decision also noted that the purpose of survivor pension benefits is to provide maintenance income after the beneficiary dies, and there is no provision allowing such benefits to be paid to a substitute claimant.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal regarding the timeliness of a November 2020 request for a higher-level review (HLR). The Board dismissed the appeal.

The Board dismissed the appeal as the administrative action approving payment of non-VA care provided by Actikare in Home Care Services (AHC) from May 1, 2020, to May 10, 2020, constitutes a reversal of the denial and full grant of the benefit sought.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded due to the need for a clarifying medical opinion regarding his prostatic epididymitis and prostate surgery, as well as an inadequate VA examination prior to the rating decision.