Other conditions Board decisions

The Veteran's right eye cataract results in impaired visual acuity to no worse than 20/40 corrected distance bilaterally, without other significant symptoms. The disability does not meet the criteria for a compensable rating.

Your appeal has been dismissed because the VA Medical Center approved payment for the non-VA medical services provided on February 5, 2020.

The Board has dismissed the appeal as there is no longer a case or controversy for decision due to VHA overturning its initial denials and approving the non-VA medical care provided by Aegis Sciences Corporation on December 30, 2020, and December 10, 2020.

The appellant's right and left leg external cutaneous nerve disabilities are currently rated as noncompensable.,Tinnitus is currently rated at the maximum schedular evaluation available.

The Veteran's residuals from a metatarsal fracture of the left foot are rated at 30 percent, effective July 12, 2018.

The Veteran is granted an additional 12 months and 5 days of Post-9/11 GI Bill education benefits, bringing his total entitlement to the statutory cap of 48 months.

The Board has remanded the claim of service connection for a left inguinal hernia and an aggravation of a ventral hernia by a service-connected right inguinal hernia. The Veteran's claims are pending further review.

The Board dismissed the appeal as it does not have jurisdiction to decide this matter, which concerns a VA decision regarding payment for non-VA medical services under the Veterans Community Care Program (VCCP).

The appeal is denied as there was no VA authorization for the non-VA medical services provided on January 14, 2021.

The Board dismissed the appeal because there was no decision on appeal to review, as the Appellant did not formally elect a specific beginning date for his DEA benefits and did not acknowledge any debt that would result from such an election.

The appeal has been dismissed as the claim for payment of non-VA emergency medical services provided on September 21, 2019, was administratively approved by VA.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding whether the Veteran's current back disability is related to his military service. The VA examiner needs to provide a more detailed opinion on this issue.

The Board has determined that the VA examiner's opinion regarding the aggravation of insomnia disorder by service-connected chronic pain due to misaligned jaw is inadequate and requires further clarification. The case is therefore being remanded for a new addendum opinion.

The appeal is dismissed as the claim for payment of non-VA emergency medical services provided on November 5, 2020 was administratively approved while the appeal was pending.

The Board denied service connection for loss of vision to include bilateral cataracts, finding that the Veteran's disability is not related to his military service and is not caused or aggravated by a service-connected condition.

The Veteran's death did not meet the criteria for nonservice-connected burial benefits as he was not in receipt of VA compensation or pension at the time of his death.

The Board has remanded the claims of service connection for right and left eye disabilities due to exposure to herbicides, as these issues were previously before the Board but not fully developed. The Veteran's active service included participation in a toxic exposure risk activity (TERA) during service.

The appeal seeking payment for non-VA medical services provided on December 16-17, 2021 was dismissed as the AOJ had already approved the benefit through administrative action.

The Board has found that remand is needed for a new medical determination considering all medical information of record and complete notice as required by law. The AOJ did not conduct the necessary development, leading to an incorrect decision based on evidence from before the original decision.

The Veteran's right eye disorder is presumed to be related to in-service herbicide exposure. However, the VA examiner did not provide a sufficient opinion regarding the etiology of the condition and thus the claim must be remanded for further evaluation.