Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has determined that there was a pre-decisional duty to assist error and the case is remanded for an adequate medical decision regarding eligibility for PCAFC benefits.

The Board has decided that the Veteran is not eligible for benefits under the Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC). The decision is remanded to provide proper notice as required by law.

The Board has remanded the case due to an inadequate VA examination and post-decision arguments regarding service connection for granulomatosis with polyangiitis. The Veteran needs a new VA examination to determine if his condition is related to service or any service-connected disabilities.

The Board has dismissed the Veteran's appeals for earlier effective dates in both TDIU and DEA benefits, finding that they were improperly docketed or not valid appeals.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to errors in developing evidence and providing proper notice regarding the reduction of pension benefits effective January 1, 2023. The AOJ must provide a detailed accounting of how the pension benefits are calculated for the year 2022 and ensure that all relevant medical expenses related to assisted living/nursing (caregiver) are considered.

The Veteran's right and left hip arthritis are granted service connection, and a rating of 10 percent for degenerative disc disease of the thoracolumbar spine with discectomy and laminectomy is denied.

The Board has granted service connection for the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder, specifically adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features, finding that the evidence is at least evenly balanced as to whether this condition is related to active service.

The Veteran's August 2018 VA Form 9 appeal was dismissed as the Veteran and his representative withdrew their appeal.

The Veteran's surviving spouse was notified in December 2022 that she is entitled to DEA benefits, which have already been granted. The appeal is dismissed as moot.

The Board denied the appellant's claim of recognition as the Veteran's surviving spouse for DIC benefits due to their divorce in 2017 and lack of evidence indicating a valid informal marriage.

The Veteran's representative withdrew the appeal for benefits under the Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC). The Board dismissed the appeal.

The Board has dismissed the appeals for restoration of Dependents' Education Assistance and Total Disability Individual Unemployability benefits as they have been fully restored.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to a duty to assist in obtaining missing service treatment records and for a medical opinion regarding whether the Veteran's cause of death is related to service, including presumed exposure to herbicide agents.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for additional compensation for a dependent parent because his mother's income exceeded the threshold amount of $400 per month, and her expenses were deducted from this amount. The Board found that her net monthly income was sufficient to provide reasonable maintenance.

The Veteran's breast reduction is not service connected as she does not have any service-connected disabilities and her breast reduction is not related to a service-connected disability.

The Board has decided to remand the claim for service connection of detached retina due to new and relevant evidence submitted since the March 2019 rating decision.

The Veteran's claims for higher initial ratings and increased ratings for his service-connected right chronic epididymitis and left orchiectomy with prosthetic implant are being remanded due to the need for new examinations to accurately assess the severity of his disabilities.

The Veteran's appeal for service connection for chronic bilateral breast abscesses has been dismissed as the Veteran requested to withdraw her appeal.

The Veteran's claim for an effective date prior to November 13, 2018, for the award of service connection for crush injury, intrinsic group VII muscles, left forearm has been dismissed because he did not file a Notice of Disagreement with the AOJ decision.

The appeal for TDIU was dismissed due to the appellant's death.