Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has determined that a remand is necessary to obtain a toxic risk exposure activity (TERA) opinion regarding the service connection claim for multiple myeloma due to conceded exposure to ionizing radiation during active-duty service.

The Veteran's chronic dizziness with episodic syncope was granted a rating of 30 percent from October 11, 2019. Prior to this date, the disability was rated at 10 percent.

The Board has determined that a VA examination and medical opinion are needed to address the Veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral eye conditions, including as secondary to diabetes mellitus type II. The remand is due to potential pre-decisional duty-to-assist errors.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal for an increased rating in excess of 10 percent for patellofemoral pain syndrome of the right knee.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for VA benefits due to his dishonorable discharge from active duty service, which occurred after he was already eligible for honorable discharge. The Board found that the appellant's misconduct leading to his court martial conviction began in 2007 and therefore did not meet the exception under 38 C.F.R. § 3.13(c) for conditional discharges.

The Veteran's deviated nasal septum is rated at the maximum schedular rating of 10 percent, and a higher rating is not warranted.

The Veteran's appeal for service connection of bradycardia (bradyarrhythmia) has been dismissed as the appellant withdrew their appeal.

The Board has dismissed the appeal regarding the rating reduction for bilateral shin splints as the appellant withdrew his appeal.

The Veteran's widow is denied DIC benefits as she remarried after the Veteran's death, which disqualifies her from being considered a surviving spouse for purposes of receiving these benefits.

The Board dismissed the appeal for payment of non-VA care provided by Aegis Sciences Corporation on August 31, 2021, as it is not within the jurisdiction of the Board to review such claims under the VCCP network.

The Veteran's death was not recognized as a surviving spouse for VA benefits due to the appellant being legally divorced from the Veteran at the time of his death.

The Veteran seeks an earlier effective date for a 10 percent evaluation for her left hip limitation of flexion, which was granted in April 2021. The Board denied this request as it is not factually ascertainable that the disability increased to warrant a 10 percent rating prior to April 30, 2021.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to inadequate VA opinions and a duty-to-assist error. The Veteran's right arm soreness is related to his military service, but further examination and opinion are needed.

The Veteran's DVT in the right leg is granted an initial rating of 20 percent, effective June 28, 2017. The Veteran's DVT in the left leg is also granted an initial rating of 20 percent, effective February 18, 2017.

The Board has determined that the VA Regional Office (RO) made pre-decisional errors in denying the appellant's claims for service connection for cause of death and entitlement to survivor's pension. The case is being remanded for further development, including obtaining evidence regarding the appellant's status as a surviving spouse and the Veteran's wartime service.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for right leg shin splints and left leg shin splints, finding no competent medical evidence to support these conditions as being related to her military service.

The Veteran's duodenal ulcer is rated at a 60 percent rating for the entire period on appeal, and he is granted TDIU.

The appeal is dismissed as the claim for payment of non-VA medical care provided to the Veteran on February 25, 2019 has been resolved administratively.

The appeal was dismissed as the claim for payment of non-VA medical services provided on February 25, 2020, has been resolved by administrative action.

The Board has determined that the February 2024 decision denying eligibility for PCAFC benefits is legally inadequate and requires a new medical determination to assess whether the Veteran required personal care services, had a need for supervision or protection, and if it would be in his best interest to participate in the program.