Other conditions Board decisions

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral feet condition, including onychomycosis and epidermophytosis, finding that there was no evidence of aggravation during service. The pre-existing condition was deemed to have been clearly and unmistakably not aggravated.

The Board has decided to remand the cases due to ambiguity in the 2016 VA examination regarding arthritis and its impact on the Veteran's right ring and small fingers. The decision also mentions that there is a need for clarification through a new examination.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to inadequate development and requests for a VA medical opinion regarding the nature and etiology of any current skin disability, including whether it is related to service.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a left eye disability, finding that there was no evidence of an in-service injury and that his current condition is not related to active duty.

The Board denied service connection for bilateral varicose veins, finding that the condition is not related to service or a service-connected disability.

The Board denied the Veteran's motion for revision of a February 1998 rating decision based on CUE, finding that there was no clear and unmistakable error in determining that the evidence did not support a compensable rating under the relevant criteria.

The Board denied the appeal as the appellant's character of discharge from service is a bar to VA benefits due to his conviction for felonies involving moral turpitude.

The Board has remanded the claims for service connection, survivor's pension, and cause of death due to missing documents and an unadjudicated request for substitution.

The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate examination and opinion regarding the Veteran's right foot disability, which may be related to service.

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant died during the pendency of the case, and there are no surviving claimants eligible for substitution.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for service connection for HIV, finding that there was no evidence to support a link between his HIV and any period of active duty for training.

The Board has decided to remand the case for further development due to inconsistencies in the VA examination reports and the need for a new one.

The Board has remanded the claims for service connection for skin disability and right ear benign glomus tumor, as well as the TDIU claim prior to August 6, 2015. The Veteran's skin condition and right ear benign glomus tumor are being reviewed again due to insufficient medical opinions provided in previous decisions.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for Crohn's disease and a prostate condition (claimed as enlarged prostate) is denied due to lack of evidence showing an in-service onset or association with his military service.,An effective date prior to August 21, 2018, for the awards of service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus is also denied.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to the need for a new VA medical opinion regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran's claimed mercury poisoning/neurological disorder.

The Veteran's claim for a total rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) has been granted with an effective date of October 20, 2010. The Board dismissed the appeal as it did not have jurisdiction over the matter.

The Board has determined that the Veteran is competent to manage his VA funds and thus, no longer requires a fiduciary. The appeal regarding this issue is dismissed.

The Board dismissed the Veteran's claims for an increased evaluation for ALS and denied his claim for SMC based on aid and attendance, as he is not in need of regular aid and attendance.

The Veteran's PCAFC eligibility was denied due to not meeting the criteria for personal care services. The Board finds this decision is flawed and requires remand to correct an error in applying legal standards.

Your appeal has been dismissed because the Veteran died during the pendency of your case. The Board does not have jurisdiction to address this issue now.