Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has determined that the Veteran's bilateral patellofemoral pain syndrome is related to his military service and granted service connection for this condition.

The Board found the termination of benefits due to fugitive felon status was improper and granted restoration of VA benefits.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient reasoning in the June 2018 VA examination regarding the Veteran's lung granuloma and other respiratory disabilities. The examiner did not adequately address the Veteran's assertions of exposure to teargas, fumes from diesel-powered equipment, and contaminated water during service.

The Veteran's unauthorized non-VA medical care for severe back and hip pain on February 10, 2018 is covered by VA because the condition was new and life-threatening.

The Board has remanded the case due to a lack of a requested endocrinologist's examination and for obtaining all relevant VA and private treatment records.

The Board denied an earlier effective date for the addition of the Veteran's spouse to her VA disability compensation award, finding no legal basis to grant such a request.

The Veteran withdrew her appeals regarding service connection and ratings for menorrhagia, anemia, PTSD, and migraine headaches.

The Veteran's pulmonary disability, including pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis (DVT), is found to be at least as likely as not due to his service in the Gulf War. Service connection for this condition is granted.

The Veteran's appeal for the reduction in VA disability compensation for drill pay days in FYs 2009, 2010, and 2011 is granted to the extent of $78 for FY 2011. The other reductions are denied.

The Board has determined that the June 28, 2016, episode of care at Seattle Cancer Care Alliance was authorized by VA and grants payment or reimbursement for medical expenses incurred.

The Veteran's service-connected left epididymitis (also claimed as varicocele and swollen left testicle) is denied an initial compensable evaluation, with the Board finding that his condition does not meet or approximate the criteria for a compensable rating under DC 7120 by analogy.

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant withdrew his appeal before a decision could be made.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for osteopenia, finding that there was no evidence linking his current condition to his military service.

The appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's death, and no jurisdiction remains for further action.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) and basic eligibility to Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) due to incomplete information regarding his employment status during the appeal period. The case will be reconsidered after further development.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a right lower extremity peripheral nerve disability, finding that it was not incurred or aggravated by his military service and is not related to his service-connected tinea pedis with onychomycosis.

The Board has granted DIC benefits based on the Veteran's service-connected cause of death, which was multiple myeloma. The Board found that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents during his service in Korea and that this exposure contributed substantially or materially to the development of his multiple myeloma.

The Board has decided to remand the Veteran's claims due to new evidence received since the last supplemental statement of the case. The AOJ will review all the evidence and provide a supplemental statement of the case if necessary.

The Board has remanded the case due to a need for a VA medical opinion regarding whether the Veteran's service-connected laryngeal cancer caused or contributed to his death from colon cancer.

The Board has remanded the claims for service connection for right-hand disability, right middle finger disability, CTS of the right upper extremity, and CTS of the left upper extremity due to a lack of substantial compliance with previous remand directives. The Veteran's MOS as an administrative specialist is noted, but the VA examiner found no evidence in STRs supporting these conditions.