Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has decided to remand the case due to potential errors in creating the overpayment, and for a review of the validity of the debt.

The Veteran's adenocarcinoma of lung is remanded due to the need for a VA examination and medical opinion regarding its etiology, as well as the need to obtain private medical records.

The Board has remanded the case due to a duty to assist error regarding the Veteran's exposure to toxic and hazardous chemicals, specifically Agent Orange and Agent Purple. The claim will be reconsidered with additional evidence.

The Board has ordered the VA to obtain missing surgical records regarding the Veteran's in-service cervical surgery and any other relevant treatment records. The case is remanded for an addendum medical opinion from a qualified examiner to address the etiology of the Veteran's claimed left elbow strain.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a gastrointestinal disorder/nervous stomach condition, finding that it was not incurred in or aggravated by service and is not secondary to his service-connected PTSD.

The Board has ordered a remand to obtain updated medical opinions regarding the Veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 due to his prostate cancer treatment.

The Veteran's left eye cataract surgery is not service-connected, and therefore, he cannot receive a temporary total evaluation based on convalescence.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient information regarding the relationship between the Veteran's anemia and his service-connected liver disability.

The Board has remanded the claims for service connection for a left thumb disorder and evaluations for lumbosacral strain, left knee strain manifestation of limitation of flexion, and left knee instability due to incomplete development.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete documentation of the informed consent form for a right eye injection. The Veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 is not related to service connection and thus does not involve any exposure basis or presumption.

The Board has decided that the Veteran's right hand strain should be remanded for further development, including obtaining an addendum opinion assessing flare-ups and functional impairment. The matter of entitlement to a TDIU is also being remanded.

The Board has denied service connection for left and right hip disabilities, migraine headaches, chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), skin disability (urticarial vasculitis), asthma, and obstructive sleep apnea due to lack of evidence of a current disability.,Service connection was not granted as the Veteran does not have a diagnosed hip disability or other claimed conditions at any time during the appeal period.

The Board has remanded the case due to a lack of a dermatologist's opinion and conflicting diagnoses. The Veteran needs an updated VA examination with a dermatologist to determine if he has any current skin disability, its etiology, and whether it is related to service.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for deep vein thrombosis and TDIU based on his service-connected adjustment disorder. The evidence did not support a finding that the DVT was related to his service-connected condition or any other in-service event, illness, or injury.

The Board has remanded the claims for further development due to inadequate medical examination and recharacterization of the rating criteria.

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

The Veteran is granted an initial compensable rating of 10 percent for his service-connected right scrotum varicocele prior to July 17, 2019.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient opinions regarding all diagnosed eye disabilities, including dry eye syndrome. The Veteran's claim for service connection for a bilateral eye condition is related to his service-connected diabetes mellitus.

The Board has granted DIC based on a presumption under the PACT Act, but now needs to determine if the Veteran's exposure to herbicide agents can be conceded on a direct basis due to new evidence provided by the Appellant.

The Board has ordered a remand to clarify the use of educational benefits under Chapter 30, and to review VR&E records. The appeal will be reconsidered based on all evidence.