Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has dismissed the appeal as the claim for payment or reimbursement of medical expenses at Bellevue on February 14, 2020, has been authorized by VA.

The appeal for payment or reimbursement of non-VA medical services on September 15, 2020 is dismissed as the episode of care was approved and payment issued.

The Veteran's appeal for an increased rating of 40 percent or more for his service-connected neurogenic bladder has been dismissed due to the Veteran's agent withdrawing the appeal in writing.

The Veteran's appeal for an earlier effective date than July 29, 2010, for the grant of service connection for a mood disorder is dismissed because there was no valid appeal under either the Legacy or AMA review systems.

The Board has found a pre-decisional duty to assist error and requires an adequate medical decision regarding the Veteran's eligibility for PCAFC benefits.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal, including the issue of total disability based on individual unemployability (TDIU), prior to a decision being made.

The Board has decided that the Veteran is not eligible for benefits under VA's Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers due to a January 2021 decision by the Centralized Eligibility and Appeals Team (CEAT). The CEAT found the Veteran did not meet eligibility requirements because he did not require care from a Family Caregiver for at least six months. However, the Board finds this decision inadequate and remands it for further review.

The Veteran's TDIU for service-connected MDS is granted from March 30, 2020. The effective date of the TDIU was determined based on the date of the VA examination that provided evidence showing an increased rating for MDS.

The Board denied a rating in excess of 50 percent for the Veteran's service-connected other specified trauma and stressor related disorder, finding that his symptoms more closely approximated a 50 percent disability rating.

The Board has granted a 30 percent rating for the service-connected diverticulitis, effective November 13, 2019. The claim for a compensable rating for adjustment disorder with depressed mood was denied.

The appeal was dismissed due to the death of the appellant, and no final decision can be made.

The Board has remanded the case due to a pre-decisional duty to assist error, as the AOJ did not adjudicate the issue of SMC based on the need for regular aid and attendance of the Veteran's spouse in the first instance.

The Veteran's appeals for clothing allowances in 2017 and 2018 were dismissed due to procedural defects.,A clothing allowance was granted for the year of 2019 due to use of Canadian crutches for his service-connected low back disability.,The appeal for a clothing allowance in 2020 was dismissed as there was no initial decision on the matter.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal before the Board could make a decision, thus the case is dismissed.

The appeal seeking payment for medical services provided on July 27, 2020 has been granted and the appellant is no longer seeking further payment.

The Veteran's service-connected mantle cell lymphoma is rated as totally disabling, but the Board found that it may improve with treatment and thus not permanently disabling for DEA eligibility.

The Board has determined that the AOJ committed pre-decisional duty to assist errors in denying service connection for TMJ disorder. The Veteran's claim is being remanded to obtain missing service treatment records and additional private medical records, and to seek a new opinion on the etiology of his TMJ disorder.

The Board is remanding the case to determine the exact number of drill days performed by the Veteran in FY 2019, as this information was not provided at the time of the decision.

The appeal to reduce the disability rating for actinic keratosis from 30 percent to a noncompensable rating is dismissed because it was not a final decision.

The Board denied the claim for a higher rate of death pension benefits, including special monthly pension based on the need for aid and attendance. The appellant argued that J.K., the adult helpless child of the deceased Veteran, should be paid at the same rate as a surviving spouse due to his Down Syndrome requiring aid and attendance. However, there is no legal basis for this claim.