Other conditions Board decisions

The Veteran's attorney has withdrawn the appeal for four issues involving limited hip flexion and extension, resulting in the dismissal of these cases.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to a duty-to-assist error in the April 2021 VA opinion, and a new medical opinion is needed.

The Veteran's service-connected obsessive-compulsive disorder with associated depressed mood resulted in significant occupational and social impairment, warranting a disability rating of 70 percent.

The Board dismissed the appeal regarding entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) based on aid and attendance as it was a deferral of decision by the AOJ, not an appealable decision.

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant requested to withdraw their appeal prior to a decision being made.

The appellant's claim for accrued benefits as a substitute claimant was denied because it was not filed within one year of the Veteran's death.

The Veteran's claims for service connection and increased ratings have been denied. The Veteran is granted a rating of 30% for left knee instability, but the other issues remain denied.

The Board has remanded the case due to a duty to assist error, requiring an additional VA examination to address the Veteran's right flank pain.

The Veteran's nocturnal enuresis has been reduced from a 40 percent disability rating to 0 percent effective May 1, 2020. The Board finds that there is an error in not securing a medical opinion addressing the relationship between the Veteran's service-connected nocturnal enuresis and his other urinary conditions, leading to remand for further action.

The Board has decided that the Veteran does not meet the eligibility criteria for PCAFC benefits and remanded to provide proper notice and a new medical opinion.

The Board dismissed the appeals for payment of non-VA medical care provided by Aegis Sciences Corporation (ASC) on January 6, 2021, and January 14, 2021, due to the absence of prior authorizations. The appeal was not about service connection.,The Board resolved in favor of the appellant for payment of non-VA medical care provided by ASC on December 23, 2020, as it had been approved and paid administratively.

The Board has determined that the Veteran is competent to manage her VA benefits and thus dismissed the appeal.

The Board has dismissed the appeal for entitlement to a higher payment rate for home health services provided by the appellant from February 1, 2020, to February 28, 2020, as this matter is governed by statutory and contractual authority that does not allow for review by the Board.

The Board denied service connection for residuals of a left foot injury, finding that the evidence did not support a link between the current condition and an in-service injury.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was previously denied in October 2016. The Board found that the effective date cannot be earlier than April 8, 2020, when the Veteran filed a supplemental claim to reopen his previous denial.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for nonservice-connected pension benefits as she did not serve in a qualifying period of war, making her ineligible for these benefits.

The Veteran's claim for an increased rating of Hodgkin's lymphoma was granted, and he is now rated at 100 percent. The claim for SMC based on housebound status due to service-connected disabilities was denied.

The Board has dismissed the appeal because the contractual payment rate for home health services provided by the appellant in April 2020 is considered proper and subject to a specific administrative dispute resolution process that does not allow for appellate review.

The Veteran's appeal has been dismissed due to the withdrawal of his representative, who requested and received permission from the Veteran to cancel the scheduled hearing. As a result, no further action will be taken on the issues of a higher disability rating for diverticulosis, earlier effective dates for TDIU benefits, and DEA eligibility.

The Board has remanded the case due to a lack of a VA examination and insufficient evidence to determine if the Veteran's squamous cell carcinoma is related to his in-service herbicide exposure.