Other conditions Board decisions

The Veteran's perianal skin tags are due to her service-connected Crohn's disease, and the Board has granted service connection for this condition. The issues of increased ratings for arthritis and mouth ulcers as symptoms of her service-connected Crohn's disease have been remanded.

The Board has dismissed the appeal as there is no longer a case or controversy for decision since VHA overturned its initial denial and approved the non-VA medical care provided by MFH on August 11, 2020.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded due to a failure to obtain verification of the number of drill days performed in fiscal years 2017 and 2018, such as Point Credit Summary, DMDC records, or DFAS pay records.

The Veteran's ambulance transportation costs on June 5, 2020 were previously denied but have now been approved by the VA. The appeal is dismissed as moot since payment has already been made.

The Board is remanding the case to determine if the overpayment was created due to a sole administrative error by VA and to locate and associate the DMC's September 7, 2018, demand letter with the Veteran's electronic claims file.

The Board dismissed the appeal because the proposed severance of service connection for other specified trauma and stressor-related disorder was not a final decision on the merits, and the Veteran prematurely appealed it. The denial of PTSD service connection is also an issue that was not properly addressed in this appeal.

The Board denied a request to establish an effective date prior to April 8, 2003 for the award of dependency benefits for the Veteran's current spouse. The decision found that no claim was submitted before this date and that the earliest effective date is April 8, 2003.

The Veteran's essential tremor is being remanded for further review due to the submission of new evidence that may affect service connection.

The appeal is dismissed as the non-VA medical services provided on November 23, 2020 have already been approved and paid for by VA.

The Veteran's appeals for payment or reimbursement of non-VA medical services provided by Aegis Sciences Corporation on October 7, 2020, and November 11, 2020, have been dismissed as the claims were processed administratively.,Both episodes of care were approved and payments were made according to VA policy.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for hyperlipidemia as it is not considered a disability for VA compensation purposes.

The Board dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's withdrawal of the appeal prior to a decision being made.

The appeal for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is dismissed due to the appellant's death.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to a lack of an adequate examination, and thus any evidence submitted during the hearing or within 90 days following it will be considered by the AOJ in the adjudication of the claims.

The Board has granted the Veteran's appeal, finding that the severance of special monthly compensation based on aid and attendance criteria being met was not proper due to a failure to follow due process requirements. The effective date for the severance remains unchanged.

The appeal for payment or reimbursement of non-VA medical services provided by the appellant during their service is dismissed as the claim has been resolved and the appellant is in receipt of the benefit sought.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's claim for service connection for weak foot requires additional examination and opinion to determine if a current diagnosis exists and whether it is related to his military service. The case is therefore remanded.

The Veteran requested withdrawal of the appeal for entitlement to a special home adaptation grant, and the Board dismissed the case as a result.

Your appeal has been dismissed because the AOJ did not actually adjudicate any issues in your May 2022 notice letters. The specific issue you raised was never addressed.

The Veteran's eligibility for PCAFC benefits is being remanded due to inadequate notice in the initial decision, and the need for supervision, protection, or instruction must be evaluated under the correct statutory criteria.