Other conditions Board decisions

The Board denied the appellant's claim for recognition as the surviving spouse of the Veteran for purposes of DIC and accrued benefits due to a lack of proof of her marriage to the Veteran.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's current jaw disability, including residuals of traumatic mandibular fracture and condylar fracture, was incurred in or related to service. The decision grants service connection for this condition.

The Board has granted service connection for right orchiectomy, finding that the Veteran's condition is directly related to his active-duty service.

The Veteran's appeal was dismissed due to their death, and the case will be closed as there are no surviving claimants.

The Board has remanded the case due to a duty-to-assist error, specifically regarding the Veteran's heart disability. The issues of service connection for prostate and skin disabilities remain unresolved.

The Board denied the veteran's surviving spouse's claim for survivor's pension benefits due to her income exceeding the maximum allowable limit set by law.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for service connection for hyperlipidemia and osteoporosis due to inadequate medical examination. The Veteran is not entitled to service connection for hyperlipidemia as it does not constitute a disability for which VA compensation can be considered. For osteoporosis, the Board finds that an adequate opinion regarding its etiology in relation to active duty service, including Agent Orange exposure, and secondary to diabetes mellitus is necessary.

The Veteran's claims for a higher rating for lymphocytic colitis with gastritis and cholecystitis status-post surgery, as well as her claim for TDIU, are being remanded due to the need for additional medical opinions regarding the severity of her conditions.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's peripheral vascular disease is secondary to his service-connected diabetes mellitus, type II. As a result, the claim for service connection for this condition is granted.

The Veteran's request for waiver of overpayment of VR&E benefits was denied because it was not filed within the 180-day time limit.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to incomplete records and failure to assist in securing evidence needed to substantiate the claim for survivor pension benefits.

The Veteran's eligibility for PCAFC benefits is being remanded due to inadequate notice in the initial decision, and the need for supervision, protection, or instruction criteria may have been applied incorrectly.

The Board has granted the Veteran's claim for service connection for a deviated septum, finding that her current condition is related to an injury sustained during active military service.

The Board has decided that the Veteran's service connection claim for a lower back injury should be remanded due to an error in obtaining private treatment records.

The Board denied the claim for an earlier effective date for service connection of pancreatic cancer, finding that the earliest effective date was October 25, 2019.

The appeal was dismissed because the Veteran died during the pendency of the appeal, and the Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this case.

The Board has granted service connection for essential tremors, finding that the evidence is at least evenly balanced as to whether the Veteran's condition was related to his active duty service. The decision resolves reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran.

The Veteran's unspecified neurocognitive disorder is related to his service-connected disabilities, including cardiovascular disease, bipolar disorder, and hearing loss. The Board finds that the evidence supports granting service connection for this condition.

The appellant's claim for payment or reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on October 25, 2016, and December 4, 2017, at IHP under CHAMPVA was denied due to an inaccurate basis. The appeal is remanded as the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) did not readjudicate the claim or provide appropriate notice.

The Board has remanded the case due to unclear debt amounts and need for further audits. The AOJ must clarify the total debts owed by the Appellant, minor child A., and minor child B., including any remaining balances.