Other conditions Board decisions

The Veteran's appeal for initial compensable ratings for service-connected left and right chronic shin splints is being remanded due to the need for a new VA examination to differentiate symptoms attributable to each disability.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to unclear information about an overpayment of VA compensation benefits, and a need for clarification regarding the amount and timing of benefits received by the Veteran.

The Veteran seeks to establish recognition of his child, E., as his dependent child for VA purposes on the basis of permanent incapacity for self-support prior to attaining the age of 18. The Board finds that there is insufficient evidence in the record to show that E. became permanently incapable of self-support prior to attaining the age of 18.

The appeal concerning the payment of non-VA medical care provided on February 6, 2020 is dismissed as the claim was administratively approved.

The Veteran's VA compensation benefits are being considered for apportionment to the appellant and her children. The appeal is currently on remand due to procedural errors in notification and insufficient development of the claim.

The Board has dismissed the appeal because the matter involves a contractual payment dispute under a Veterans Care Agreement (VCA) which is subject to specific administrative procedures that do not allow for further review by the Board.

The Board has dismissed the appeal because the matter is subject to a specific administrative dispute resolution process for Veterans Care Agreements (VCAs) that does not allow for appellate review by the Board.

The Board has decided to remand the Veteran's claims for service connection for nerve damage of the right and left feet due to a lack of VA examination and corresponding nexus opinions addressing each claim on a direct incurrence basis.

The Board has decided to remand the cases for a VA examination to determine if the veteran's right and left hand disabilities are related to his military service.

The Board has dismissed the appeal as the claim for payment of medical services provided by Aegis Sciences Corporation on November 25, 2020, has already been granted.

The Veteran's VA pension benefits include additional compensation for the dependent A.J. The appellant has demonstrated financial hardship and the apportionment granted is equal to the amount of his dependency compensation.

The Board denied the Veteran's appeal as the VA correctly withheld his disability compensation benefits to recoup $21,316.05 of separation pay he received after taxes.

The appeal is dismissed as the Veteran is in receipt of the benefit sought on appeal.

The Board has decided to remand the claim of entitlement to payment or reimbursement for ambulance transportation provided by the appellant on June 23, 2019. The AOJ must adjudicate this claim under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 1725 and 38 C.F.R. §§ 17.1000-1008.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to an inadequate VA examination for rating purposes, and thus requires a new evaluation of the Veteran's reactive airway disease.

The Veteran's claim for special monthly compensation (SMC) under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(k) based on the anatomical loss of 25 percent or more of tissue from a single breast is dismissed because the Veteran is already in receipt of SMC under this provision.

The appeal regarding the contractual payment for medical services provided by OhioHealth Physician Group to a Veteran under a Veterans Care Agreement is dismissed because the dispute resolution process for VCA payments does not include Board review.

The Veteran's medical provider seeks payment or reimbursement for non-VA medical services provided from March 6, 2020, to March 7, 2020. The claim was remanded due to the lack of proper authorization and insufficient review of submitted records.

The appeal is dismissed because the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the prior authorization of the treatment provided by the appellant.

The Board has determined that there was a pre-decisional duty to assist error and the case is being remanded for an adequate medical decision regarding eligibility for PCAFC benefits.