Other conditions Board decisions

The Veteran's child, P.B., is recognized as a helpless child for VA benefits due to his permanent incapacity for self-support prior to the age of 18.

The Board denied service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death, finding that there was no evidence linking any service-connected disability to his death. The Board also found that there was no exposure to herbicide agents during service.

The Board denied the claim of service connection for throat cancer, finding that there was no evidence linking the condition to service.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for loss of two front teeth was denied because he failed to report for a scheduled VA examination without good cause.

The appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's death, and no further action can be taken on this case.

The Veteran's eligibility for PCAFC benefits is being remanded due to inadequate notice in the initial decision, and the need to correct the error based on a precedent court ruling.

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 decision. The claim will be evaluated based on the correct statutory criteria for 'need for supervision, protection, or instruction' as per a recent court ruling.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim of service connection for dental disability for compensation purposes, finding that there was no current dental disability and that any condition found during service did not meet the criteria for VA compensation.

The Veteran's eligibility for PCAFC benefits is being remanded due to a lack of proper notice in the initial decision, and the need to correct the error based on a recent court ruling.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for service connection for Morton's neuroma of the bilateral feet and ingrown toenails of the bilateral feet due to inadequate VA examinations.

The Board has granted the Veteran's claims for nonservice-connected burial allowance, burial plot or interment allowance, and denied the claim for transportation expenses. The decision is based on evidence showing that the Veteran died while under VA care and with VA authorization.

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 must be evaluated under the correct statutory criteria.

The Board has found a duty to assist error and remands the case for a VA examination to determine if the Veteran's anal cancer is related to his conceded exposures to Agent Orange and contaminated water at Camp Lejeune.

Your appeal has been dismissed because your medical expenses were already approved by VA.

The Board has decided that the file is incomplete and there are legal issues with the notification regarding eligibility for PCAFC benefits. The case is being remanded to ensure a complete record, provide legally adequate notice, and obtain an adequately supported medical opinion.

The Board has decided that a VA examination is necessary to fully develop the Veteran's claim for service connection of multiple myeloma, as there is insufficient competent medical evidence on file for VA to decide on this claim.

The Veteran's service-connected left and right medial tibial stress syndrome have been rated at 10 percent each, per leg.,The Board found that the symptoms of the Veteran's service-connected left and right medial tibial stress syndrome most closely approximated the diagnostic criteria for a 10 percent rating.

The Board has remanded the case due to outstanding VA treatment records related to 2004 eye surgeries and laser procedures. The AOJ is instructed to secure these records and document any unavailability.

The Veteran's petition to reopen his previously denied claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for loss of vision in the right eye is granted, as evidence received since the March 2014 rating decision relates to unestablished facts necessary to substantiate the claim and raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim.

The Board denied the Veteran's request for an earlier effective date for adding his spouse as a dependent, finding that the earliest possible effective date was December 1, 2015.