Other conditions Board decisions

The Board denied the Veteran's claims of service connection for mini-strokes and neck condition as secondary to mini-strokes, finding no evidence linking these conditions to her active service.

The appeal for a higher rating of service-connected bilateral hearing loss is dismissed due to the Veteran's death. The Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this appeal at this time.

The Veteran's increased rating for status post myomectomies secondary to fibroid disease is being remanded due to the need for a VA examination to assess the severity of her condition since July 2010.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for an earlier effective date for DIC benefits, finding that she did not submit a valid application within one year of her husband's death. The decision is based on statutory and regulatory requirements regarding effective dates.

The Board has determined that the matter is not ripe for appellate review as all steps necessary to ensure the procedural and due process rights of the parties have not been completed. The case involves a simultaneously contested claim, and the provisions of 38 C.F.R. require full compliance with the contested claims procedures.

The Board has decided that the Veteran's initial compensable rating for dry eye syndrome needs to be remanded due to incomplete medical records and the need for a medical opinion regarding the etiology of her visual field defect.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claim for an initial rating in excess of 30 percent disabling for coronary atherosclerosis (also claimed as chest pains) prior to May 26, 2015, and in excess of 10 percent thereafter due to inadequate examination reports and outstanding VA treatment records.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development to address whether the Veteran's opioid dependence is due to medication prescribed for his service-connected disabilities.

The Board has remanded the claim for a bilateral lung condition, including as secondary to asbestos exposure, due to inadequate examination and opinion regarding the relationship between the Veteran's current respiratory condition and his military service.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for left hip myositis and trochanteric pain syndrome with limitation of extension and flexion due to a lack of recent VA examination, which is required by Correia v. McDonald (2016). The examiner must assess current range of motion and any additional loss due to flare-ups or functional impairment.

The Board has denied service connection for dementia, finding that the Veteran does not meet the DSM-5 criteria for alcohol/drug use disorder or dementia. The increased disability rating claim for skin condition is remanded.

The Veteran's appeal was dismissed due to their death, and no jurisdiction remains for the Board to consider the merits of the case.

The Veteran's overpayment of VA compensation benefits in the amount of $497.43 is being remanded for a paid and due audit to clarify the amounts paid and recouped for his dependent spouse, including addressing his assertions of VA error.

The Board dismissed the claim for apportionment of the Veteran's VA pension benefits due to his death in November 2019.

The Veteran's death was not service-connected, and the appellant did not meet the eligibility criteria for nonservice-connected burial benefits.

The Board has remanded the case due to a need for new medical opinions regarding the relationship between the Veteran's basal cell carcinoma and his in-service sun exposure, as well as his presumed herbicide exposure.

The Veteran's appeal for reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses has been withdrawn, and the appeals are dismissed.

The Veteran's appeal for service connection for bilateral surfer's knots (claimed as bilateral foot injuries) is dismissed because the claimant died during the pendency of the appeal.

The Board has remanded the case due to an inadequate VA medical opinion regarding the Veteran's service connection claim for restless leg syndrome. The case is now pending with a new examination and review of all relevant records.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to a challenge by the Appellant regarding whether the overpayment was properly created. The issue of whether the overpayment was valid must be resolved before considering the waiver request.