Other conditions Board decisions

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

The Board has granted service connection for thrombocythemia and malignant skin neoplasm, finding that the Veteran's current conditions are due to exposure to environmental toxins during his military service.

The Veteran's left salpingo-oophorectomy residuals are not considered disabling enough to warrant a compensable rating, as her symptoms do not meet the criteria for any higher rating under Diagnostic Code 7619.

The Board has decided to remand the service connection claims for left armpit rash, right armpit rash, belly button ulcer, and skin rash due to a lack of an adequate examination addressing direct service connection based on exposure to toxic substances.

The Board has ordered a remand for further examination to determine if the use of clindamycin was appropriate given the Veteran's history of gastrointestinal issues and whether it caused or worsened his large intestine resection.

The Veteran is seeking reimbursement for unauthorized non-VA medical expenses incurred at Scripps Memorial Hospital in LaJolla, California. The Board has decided to remand the case due to incomplete information and need for additional records.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a respiratory disorder, finding that there was no evidence of a current disability and insufficient medical nexus to establish a link between his military service and any diagnosed condition.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded to consider his claim for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) from March 11, 2020. The AOJ needs to issue another Supplemental Statement of the Case addressing this period.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to the need for a VA examination to determine if the Veteran's eye disability is related to his service, specifically exposure to microwave type, non-ionizing radiation.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for syncope, finding no current disability and insufficient evidence to establish a link between service and syncope.

The Board has granted service connection for the traumatic partial amputation of the Veteran's left hand, finding that it occurred in the line of duty and not due to willful misconduct.

The Board denied the claim for benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1805, as the appellant does not have a diagnosis of spina bifida other than spina bifida occulta.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims due to issues with scheduling examinations, and further examination or opinion is needed.

The Veteran's stroke is being remanded due to the need for obtaining a full consent document from VistA Imaging Display.

The Board has decided that the claim of entitlement to service connection for an irregular heartbeat should be remanded due to insufficient evidence regarding its onset and relationship to service.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to a lack of VA authorizations for treatment received on June 15, 2017. The Veteran's claim will be reconsidered with these additional records.

The Veteran's adult daughter is not eligible for accrued benefits as she does not meet the criteria to be a valid claimant. The appeal regarding service connection for IHD was denied due to lack of evidence and no spouse at the time of death.

The Board has determined that further development is needed to determine if VA's failure to diagnose and treat the Veteran's preexisting urinary symptoms resulted in additional disability or death, which would be necessary for a claim under 38 U.S.C. § 1151.

The Board has determined that the overpayment of Chapter 33 education benefits must be reviewed to determine if it was properly created and whether any portion of the overpayment was due to administrative error. The case is being remanded for further review.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to missing VA treatment records and inadequate medical opinions regarding the cause of the left eye enucleation. The Veteran's claim for compensation under 38 USC § 1151 is being reviewed again.