Other conditions Board decisions

The Veteran withdrew their appeal for a total disability based on unemployability (TDIU). The Board dismissed the appeal as a result.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a left arm chemical burn, finding no current diagnosis and insufficient evidence to establish a link between the in-service injury and any present disability.

The Veteran's lipomas in the upper and lower extremities, as well as the abdomen, are rated at 10 percent each. The rating for diabetic retinopathy is denied.

The Board has granted the appellant's claim for service connection for a left middle finger disability, but denied his request to be recognized as a Veteran due to his under Other Than Honorable (OTH) discharge from active duty service.

The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for reinstatement of service-connected disability compensation benefits was denied as there is no evidence of a prior claim and the regulations governing reinstatement do not allow for an earlier effective date.

The Veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses incurred at a private hospital from January 25, 2019, to January 28, 2019, was denied because he did not receive care within the VA system during the previous 24 months.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the lack of adequate notice and failure to obtain records related to her application for Tuition Assistance.

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 a Federal Circuit Court decision.

The Board denied the Veteran's request for a waiver of an overpayment due to retroactively removing dependent spouse benefits, finding fault on the part of the Veteran and no undue hardship or unjust enrichment.

The Board has granted service connection for right foot arthritis and left foot arthritis, finding that the Veteran's current diagnoses of bilateral foot arthritis are at least as likely as not related to his in-service injuries. Effective dates will be assigned based on the date of the decision.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded to correct errors in the creation of the overpayment and to provide an audit. The validity of the overpayment will be adjudicated, and a new waiver request will be considered.

The appeal was dismissed due to the Veteran's death, and no service connection issues were decided.

The Board has determined that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of restless leg syndrome in either his right or left legs, and thus cannot establish service connection for these conditions.

The Veteran's eligibility for benefits under VA's PCAFC program is being remanded due to a pre-decisional duty to assist error. The Board needs an adequate medical decision regarding the Veteran's need for personal care services and supervision.

The Veteran's appeal was dismissed due to his death, and no effective date or rating is assigned as the appeal is not about service connection.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient notice under 38 U.S.C. § 5104 regarding eligibility for benefits under the Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC). The Veteran, caregiver, and appointed representative need to be provided with a complete notice as required by law.

The Board dismissed the appeal as the appellant requested withdrawal of all issues on appeal.

The Board has remanded the case due to a duty to assist error regarding the Veteran's dental condition, specifically whether his loss of teeth is due to trauma or disease. The Veteran will need to undergo a VA examination to address these issues.

The Board has determined that the evidence is insufficient to determine whether the Veteran's pre-existing KTWS condition was aggravated by service. The case is being remanded for further development and consideration.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded due to a failure to properly develop his periods of active duty service for purposes of entitlement to Chapter 33 educational assistance benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The AOJ must undertake further development to reconcile why only the period from February 25, 2003, to October 24, 2003, is considered qualifying active duty service.