Other conditions Board decisions

The Veteran's right foot gunshot wound residuals with metatarsalgia are currently rated at 20 percent, and the Board has determined that a higher rating is not warranted for any period.

The Board has dismissed the appeal as there is no longer a case or controversy for decision due to VHA overturning its initial denial and approving the non-VA expenses incurred at SFOMS in September and December 2019.

The Board denied the Appellant's claim for survivor's pension, dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC), and accrued benefits because she was not married to the Veteran at the time of his death.

The Board has granted service connection for squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue, finding it likely related to in-service exposure to Agent Orange.

The Board has decided that there is insufficient information to determine if the Veteran and his spouse have a community property state or any overpayment debt. The decision is remanded for further action.

The Veteran's overpayment of $11,125.88 in dependency benefits is being remanded for further review due to a potential error in the process.

The Board granted the Veteran's waiver request for overpayment of VA compensation benefits, finding no fault on his part and financial hardship as reasons to waive recovery.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for effective dates prior to September 30, 2010 for the grants of service connection for left upper and lower extremity hemiparesis due to lack of appeal in earlier decisions.

The Veteran's application for eligibility in the VA's Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC) is being remanded due to legal inadequacy and a pre-decisional duty to assist error. The decision was not compliant with section 5104, and there are issues regarding the medical opinion provided by the Centralized Eligibility and Appeals Team (CEAT).

The Board found that the overpayment of VA compensation benefits was solely due to VA administrative error, and thus granted the appeal.

The Board has granted service connection for a facial tremor, finding that it is related to an in-service blast injury.

The Veteran's appeal of the reduction in his NHL rating from 100 to 10 percent, effective February 2019, and his claim for a TDIU have been dismissed due to the Veteran withdrawing all issues on appeal.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to a lack of VA examination, and a new one will be ordered if the Veteran does not attend.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for service connection for venous insufficiency and lymphedema due to inadequate examination reports. The issues are related to whether these conditions are directly caused by or aggravated by her service-connected hypertension.

The Veteran's vascular disease, including bilateral lower extremity peripheral arterial disease and brawny hemosiderin laden edema with liposclerosis and hyperemia, is remanded for further examination to determine if it is related to his in-service exposure to herbicide agents or organic solvents.

The Board has ordered the AOJ to clarify the type and amount of SSA benefits that both the Veteran and his spouse have been receiving during the appeal period, including SSI income. The AOJ is also instructed to provide a report showing the calculation an itemization of both Veteran's and his spouse's income and their unreimbursed medical expenses for each appropriate annualization period during the appeal period.

The Veteran died in June 1987. The appellant, who was married to the Veteran until his death and lived with him continuously thereafter, is recognized as the surviving spouse for the period prior to November 15, 1997, for purposes of VA death benefits.

The Veteran's dysphagia is granted as secondary to his service-connected cervical spine disability. The issues of separate ratings for bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy and TDIU are remanded.

The Board has granted service connection for the Veteran's skin rash, finding that it was aggravated by his service-connected major depressive disorder with psychotic features.

The Board finds that additional development is required due to a duty to notify error and insufficient notice on what was needed to substantiate the claim. The threshold elements of whether the Appellant is considered a surviving spouse, whether the Veteran's service meets the requisite period, and whether it was during wartime have not been addressed.