Other conditions Board decisions

The Veteran's appeal was dismissed as he withdrew his appeal prior to the promulgation of a decision.

The Board denied service connection for a right leg disability and a stomach condition (hernia) as there is no evidence of current disabilities or in-service incurrence.,Service connection was not granted for the Veteran's claimed right leg disability due to lack of current evidence and insufficient link between his service and any diagnosed condition. The same reasoning applied to his stomach condition.

The Board granted the waiver of recoupment of the $5,639 overpayment debt due to the Veteran's surviving spouse. The decision found that the Appellant provided six-week notice and VA procrastinated in taking action, resulting in a balance-of-fault element favoring the Appellant. The financial-hardship element also favored the waiver claim as the Appellant was unable to meet her basic needs without assistance from her daughter.

The Veteran's biological granddaughter, T.K., is not considered a dependent for purposes of additional dependency compensation due to her age and the lack of legal adoption or guardianship.

The appeal of the Veteran's claim for TDIU has been dismissed as moot because his request was granted in a recent rating decision, and there is no remaining case or controversy regarding this issue.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for service connection for radiculopathy of the right and left upper extremities as secondary to his service-connected cervical spine disability due to inadequate medical opinions in the original decision.

The Board has restored the Veteran's disability rating for paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia from 30% to full (100%) effective February 7, 2020.

The Board has determined that the decision denying additional accrued benefits was not clear and informative, as required by law. The matter is being remanded to provide proper notice and readjudication of the claim.

The Veteran withdrew her appeal for service connection of separation of the pelvis due to a prior grant of service connection for her back condition.

The Board has determined that a remand is necessary to fully and fairly adjudicate the issue of whether the Veteran's memory problems with multifactorial etiology are due to VA treatment, including prescribed medication. The case will be returned for further development.

The Board has restored a 40 percent rating for TMJ disorder from October 8, 2019, finding that the reduction was improper due to lack of improvement in the Veteran's ability to function under ordinary conditions.

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant's authorized representative requested and received approval to withdraw the appeal.

The Veteran withdrew their appeal regarding eligibility for benefits under VA's Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC). The Board dismissed the appeal as a result.

The reduction of the rating for Raynaud's syndrome from 40 percent to 20 percent disabling effective January 29, 2020 was not proper; restoration of the 40 percent rating is granted.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for a waiver of the recoupment of an overpayment in the amount of $24,128.61 due to lack of equity and good conscience.

The Veteran has withdrawn her appeal regarding the increased disability rating for bilateral hip trochanteric pain syndrome, including limited flexion and extension. The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is dismissed. The issue of service connection for a psychiatric disorder, including Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) with Anxious Distress Features and Psychotic Features, and secondary Polysubstance Use Disorder in Sustained Remission, is remanded.

The Veteran withdrew his appeals for temporary 100 percent evaluations under 38 CFR 4.29 and 4.30 before the Board could make a decision.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal, so the case is dismissed.

The Board has decided that remand is necessary due to non-compliance with notice requirements for the apportionment claim. The Veteran was not notified of the decision and his rights, while the Appellant received proper notification.