Other conditions Board decisions

The Board dismissed the appeal because it does not have authority to decide whether VA should pay for non-VA medical services provided by a provider on September 7, 2021. The decision is based on VA's denial of payment due to lack of authorization.

The Board has denied the Veteran's request to restore a temporary total evaluation for his right ulnar nerve disability, finding that there was clear and unmistakable error in granting such an evaluation. The decision also found that the evidence did not support at least one month of convalescence following surgery.

The Board dismissed the appeal because it does not have authority to decide whether payment for non-VA medical services provided by a provider is authorized under the Veterans Community Care Program (VCCP).

The appeal for payment or reimbursement of non-VA services incurred on July 9, 2020 is dismissed as the Veteran is now in receipt of the benefit sought.

The Veteran's claims for higher ratings for her right and left hip limitations of flexion, as well as compensable ratings for her right and left hip strains with impairment of thigh, have been denied by the Board. The evidence does not support a finding that these conditions most closely approximate the criteria for a rating higher than 10 percent.

The Board has decided that the Veteran is not eligible for PCAFC benefits and remands the case to provide proper notice and a new medical opinion.

The Veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of non-VA medical expenses incurred on January 30, 2020 due to a motor vehicle accident is remanded as VA did not receive the required documentation from the Veteran regarding third-party liability.

The Veteran's son is not entitled to a higher rate of payment for Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits as the monthly stipend was correctly set by regulation.

The Board has dismissed the appeal as it pertains to payment for medical services provided by a non-VA healthcare provider within the Veterans Community Care Program. The decision is based on statutory and contractual authority that does not allow for review by the Board.

The Veteran's service-connected urinary incontinence has rendered him unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation, and the Board has granted entitlement to total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU).

The Veteran withdrew his appeal for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities before the Board could schedule a hearing.

The Board has determined that the September 2021 rating decision denying service connection for upper airway resistance syndrome is flawed due to an administrative error, and thus remands the case for further development.

The Board has remanded the DIC, accrued benefits, and survivor's pension claims due to new evidence received after the initial decision. The DIC claim is being reconsidered based on newly associated service personnel records, while the other claims are remanded for further development of income information.

The Board dismissed the appeal as it does not have jurisdiction to review the VA decision regarding payment for non-VA medical services under the VCCP.

The appeal for payment or reimbursement of non-VA medical services provided from January 14, 2021 to February [REDACTED], 2021 is dismissed as the appellant is in receipt of the benefit sought on appeal.

The Veteran withdrew her appeal for a restoration of a 10 percent rating for the residuals of an oophorectomy related to ovarian cysts and pelvic adhesions.

The appeal is denied as there was no VA authorization for the non-VA medical services provided on January 17, 2021.

The Board has granted service connection for multiple myeloma on a direct, facts-found basis due to exposure to burn pits and other toxins during the Veteran's service in Southwest Asia.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to duty-to-assist errors and the need for an addendum opinion regarding the Veteran's right big toe cold injury.

The Board found that the overpayment of $4,899 was properly created due to incorrect marital status reporting and denied the appeal.