Other conditions Board decisions

Your appeal for service connection for severe toenail fungus has been dismissed due to procedural issues. No rating decision was issued on your claim, and no errors of fact or law were alleged.

The Veteran's appeal for a higher rating of gout has been dismissed as the Veteran's attorney withdrew all appeals pending at the Board.

The Veteran's claim for a waiver of recovery of an overpayment of VA compensation benefits, in the amount of $14,133.39, is being remanded due to disputes regarding both the validity of the debt and whether the Veteran should be held responsible for the creation of the overpayment.

The Veteran's appeals for higher ratings and TDIU have been dismissed due to their death.

The Veteran's adult daughter filed for accrued benefits more than one year after her mother's death, which is not within the time limit allowed by law. The claim was denied as it was submitted outside of the required one-year period following the date of her mother's death.

The Board dismissed the appeal because the issue of whether the contractual payment rate for home health services provided by the appellant is proper falls under a specific administrative dispute resolution process for Veterans Care Agreements (VCAs) administered by VA's Department of Veterans Affairs. This process does not allow for further review or appeal.

The Veteran's claim for past-due accrued benefits payment in the amount of $33,827 is granted due to concurrent receipt of retirement pay and disability compensation.

The Board has granted the appeal, finding that the appellant's character of discharge from service was upgraded to under honorable conditions prior to April 5, 1977. This upgrade sets aside any previous bar to VA benefits imposed due to dishonorable service.

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant, a non-VA healthcare provider within the Veterans Community Care Program network, provided medical services to the Veteran on January 11, 2021. The process for billing and payment of these services is governed by contractual agreements that do not allow for Board review.

The Board has remanded the claim for payment or reimbursement of non-VA care provided on October 23, 2020 due to incomplete documentation and failure to comply with notice requirements.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient reasons and bases for denying the claim of service connection for a sinus disability, including residuals from a maxillary surgery. The Veteran's lay statements and in-service treatment history are considered, along with his current symptoms and exposure risk activities.

The Board has decided to remand the claims for service connection for left and right hip degenerative joint disease as secondary to knee conditions due to a duty-to-assist error in obtaining relevant post-service medical records from Langley AFB and Fort Eustis, and inadequate VA examinations.

The Board has dismissed the appeal as there is no administrative review process for disputes related to contractual payment rates under Veterans Care Agreements (VCAs).

Your appeal has been dismissed because the VA approved your claim for payment of non-VA medical services provided on November 22, 2019. The issue is resolved and no further action is needed.

The Board has found that the appellant's initial claim for accrued benefits was received in January 2019 and should be interpreted as a Supplemental Claim. The RO failed to advise her about submitting a Form 20-0995, leading to remand for readjudication.

The Veteran's appeal for travel expenses reimbursement was dismissed as the Veteran requested to withdraw the appeal before a decision could be made.

The Board has granted the Veteran's requests to add his wife, T.Y., as a dependent spouse and his stepchild, E.K., as a dependent stepchild.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a urinary disability, finding no probative evidence showing that his condition began during service or was related to an in-service event, injury, or disease. The Board also found insufficient evidence of secondary service connection due to PTSD.

The Veteran's left infrapatellar tendonitis was evaluated as 10 percent disabling, but the Board found that his flexion did not limit to 30 degrees and denied a higher rating.

The Board has decided that the Veteran does not meet the eligibility requirements for PCAFC benefits based on a need for personal care services, supervision, or instruction. The decision is being remanded to correct errors in notice and medical determination.