Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has decided that the AOJ did not properly adjudicate the Appellant's claim for SRT services in conjunction with his Chapter 35/DEA benefits. The decision is remanded to determine if the Appellant is entitled to these services.

The Board has determined that there was a pre-decisional duty to assist error regarding when VA may have received an incomplete application form for the benefit at the center of the current appeal. The Veteran is encouraged to clarify whether he and S.C. were married prior to the March 2019 effective date.

The Board has determined that the eligibility decision for PCAFC benefits was not legally adequate and requires further review. The Veteran's eligibility is being remanded to allow for a proper notification process and medical opinion.

The Veteran's claim for an initial compensable disability rating for chronic left-sided submandibular adenitis is being remanded due to incomplete development of the record.

The Veteran's claim for prescription medication reimbursement from January 1, 2020, through May 20, 2020 is denied as the treatment was not related to an emergency medical visit and does not meet the eligibility criteria under 38 U.S.C. § 1728.

The Veteran is seeking reimbursement for ambulance transportation provided on February 1, 2019. The Board has determined that there are missing documents and additional information needed to make a decision.

The Board has granted service connection for dementia, finding that the Veteran's dementia is at least as likely as not related to his military service due to exposure to Agent Orange.

The appeal of the non-VA medical expenses claim is dismissed because VA did not make a determination denying the benefits sought.

The Veteran's eligibility for benefits under the Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC) is being remanded due to inadequate notice in the initial determination. The claim will be evaluated based on the correct statutory criteria for 'need for supervision, protection, or instruction' as per the Federal Circuit ruling in Veteran Warriors v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

The Board has granted service connection for keratoconus of the eyes, finding that it had its onset during service and is related to service.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to an error in retroactively terminating the Veteran's VA pension benefits, and a recalculation of the overpayment amount is required.

The Veteran withdrew their appeal for service connection of monoclonal gammopathy, leading to the dismissal of this case.

The appeal for attorney fees is dismissed due to the untimeliness of the appellant's VA Form 10182 Notice of Disagreement.

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

The Board has determined that the eligibility determination for PCAFC benefits was not fully adequate and requires further review. The decision is being remanded to consider whether the Veteran requires personal care services each time he completes one or more activities of daily living (ADLs) and whether he needs regular supervision, protection, or instruction.

The appellant withdrew their appeal regarding the denial of eligibility for the Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC). As a result, the Board dismissed the appeal.

The Board has dismissed the claim for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) as it is no longer before the Board because the benefit sought has been granted.

The Veteran's claim for additional VA educational assistance benefits is denied as he is limited to a maximum of 48 months of total educational benefits, including what can be transferred to his dependents.

The Veteran's appeal for payment or reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on October 1, 2019 has been dismissed as the claim was already approved by TriWest.

The Board denied service connection for bilateral hip pain, finding that the evidence did not support an in-service injury or disease and that there was no credible evidence of worsening hip pain since service.,Secondary service connection was also denied as the opinion relied on post-period-on-appeal evidence.