Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has decided to remand the case for further development and review, including obtaining missing military service records and verifying the Veteran's current address. The issues on appeal are related to service connection and the character of the Appellant's discharge.

The Board has decided that the change in the Veteran's Means Test eligibility category from copay exempt to copay required is proper and remanded for further action.

The Board has granted the Veteran's claim for service connection for cardiomyopathy with left ventricular dysfunction, congestive heart failure, and atrial fibrillation as secondary to her service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The Veteran's TMD/TMJ is being remanded for further examination and opinion to determine if it was incurred in or aggravated by service, considering the preexisting nature of the condition.

The Veteran's right and left elbow disabilities are currently rated at 10 percent, but the Board has denied any higher ratings due to lack of additional functional loss or limitation of motion.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient medical opinions regarding whether the Veteran's service-connected psychiatric or leukemia disabilities aggravated his obesity, which is a substantial factor in causing his acrochordons (skin tags).

The VA healthcare system changed the Veteran's eligibility category for copay exemptions from 2007, and he is now required to pay a prescription copay. The appeal was denied as his income exceeded the maximum annual rate of VA pension.

The Board has decided that a VA examination is needed to determine if the Veteran's Epstein-Barr virus disorder had its onset during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease.

The Board has granted the Veteran's claims for payment or reimbursement of unauthorized, non-VA medical expenses incurred at Mercy Medical Center on May 13, 2018. The decision is based on the Veteran's belief that a delay in treatment would have been hazardous to his health.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for increased ratings for his bilateral hip conditions due to concerns about the competency of the VA examiners who conducted the relevant examinations.

The Veteran's gastritis has been granted a 30 percent rating, effective from the date of the decision.

The Board has remanded the case due to missing records, and the Veteran's claim for a clothing allowance in 2015 is likely related to a back brace. The AOJ needs to reconstruct the record and upload all documentation.

The Board has determined that additional development is needed before the claims on appeal can be adjudicated, including obtaining a more recent Financial Status Report (FSR) from the Veteran.

The Board has decided to remand the cases for further examination and opinion regarding service connection for left hand disability due to in-service exposure to ionizing radiation. The right hand disability issue is also being remanded as a statement of the case was not issued yet.

The Board has remanded the claims for bilateral hip disorders due to an inadequate medical opinion in a previous VA examination. The Veteran's hip conditions are being reviewed again with new evidence and opinions.

The Board has found that there was not substantial compliance with the mandates of the January 2009 remand order. The claim is being remanded to obtain necessary records and reconstruct the file.

The Veteran's VA disability compensation benefits were retroactively reduced due to his incarceration for child support arrears, which was not a felony conviction. The Board finds that the nature of the underlying offense is unclear and requires further investigation.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the Veteran's sleep disorder and requests a VA examination.

The Board has remanded the cases due to inadequate opinions regarding the service connection for prostate, bilateral hand, and sinus disabilities. Additional evaluations are needed to determine if these conditions are related to service.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to inconsistencies in the debt calculation and the need for a clear explanation of how the $33,563.07 overpayment was calculated. The Veteran's challenge to the validity and amount of the overpayment must be addressed before any decision on the waiver request can be made.