Other conditions Board decisions

The Veteran's daughter, the Appellant, requested an extension of her delimiting date for education benefits under Chapter 35 (DEA) due to being disabled and family issues preventing her from attending school. The Board denied this request as it was not timely filed.

The appeal was dismissed as the claim for payment of non-VA emergency medical services provided on December 4, 2020 has been resolved by administrative action.

The Veteran's appeal was dismissed due to their death during the pendency of the appeal.

The appeal for payment of the cost of non-VA dental services provided on March 4, 2020, is dismissed as the claim was administratively approved and no longer in dispute.

The Veteran's appeal for a higher rating and an earlier effective date for his left hip replacement was denied. The Board found that the current 30 percent rating is appropriate as of July 1, 2018, given the lack of moderately or markedly severe residuals of weakness, pain, or limitation of motion, or use of crutches.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for VRRAP educational assistance benefits because they did not have active military service, which is a requirement to qualify.

The Veteran's appeal for a higher disability rating for left rib 6 and 7 intercostal muscle strain was dismissed because the AOJ accepted his May 2020 VA Form 20-0995, which constituted a concurrent election with the October 2020 VA Form 10182.

The Board has determined that the VA-contracted examination is inadequate and remands the case for an addendum opinion to address whether the Veteran's squamous cell carcinoma is related to service exposure.

The Board has determined that there is insufficient evidence to support the Veteran's claim regarding a severance pay and has ordered further investigation by the AOJ.

The Board has determined that the March 2024 decision denying eligibility for VA's Caregivers PCAFC program is legally inadequate and requires further development. The Veteran was not provided with a thorough medical opinion to support his claim, and there are inconsistencies in the evidence regarding his need for personal care services.

The appeal was dismissed as the claim for payment of non-VA emergency medical services provided on November 19, 2020 has been resolved by administrative action.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for survivors' pension benefits due to her countable annual income exceeding the applicable maximum annual pension rate (MAPR).

The Veteran's right shoulder disability, including tendinopathy and arthritis, is rated at 30% effective as of the date of this decision.

The Board has granted service connection for other specified trauma and stressor-related disorder, finding that the Veteran's current symptoms are related to in-service combat exposure. The decision resolves doubt in favor of the Veteran.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient medical opinion regarding whether POTS is related to service-connected peripheral neuropathy or if it had its onset in service. The Veteran's claim for secondary service connection will be reconsidered with a new medical opinion.

The Board has dismissed the appeal for entitlement to attorney fees based on past-due benefits awarded in the February 2020 rating decision as the appellant requested withdrawal of the appeal.

The Veteran's requests for earlier effective dates for service connection are dismissed. The Board also remanded the issue of service connection for a traumatic brain injury (TBI).

The appeal is dismissed as the claim for payment of non-VA medical services provided on May 23, 2019 has been resolved administratively.

The Veteran's claim for an initial rating greater than 30 percent for service-connected unspecified trauma- and stressor-related disorder is being remanded due to a pre-decisional duty to assist error. Relevant private treatment records were not obtained before the January 2022 decision.

The Veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for residuals of cranial nerve damage was denied due to lack of evidence showing carelessness, negligence, or similar instance of fault on VA's part.,The Veteran's request for a temporary 100 percent evaluation due to convalescence following the CEA surgery was also denied.