Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has decided to remand the cases of microscopic hematuria and actinic keratosis due to inadequate medical opinions in the previous examinations. The Veteran's conditions are not related to service, but further examination is needed to determine their etiology.

The Board dismissed the appeal as the appellant withdrew her appeal for recognition of G.R. (appellant) as a 'child' of the Veteran for purposes of DIC benefits.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for survivor benefits, service connection for cause of death, and dependency and indemnity benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 due to her not meeting the statutory definition of a child as defined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.57.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's bilateral lower extremity peripheral vascular disease is related to service, as it likely began during his time in Korea where he experienced cold and wet weather conditions. The decision grants service connection for this condition.

The Veteran's claim for retroactive recognition of C.J. as a dependent child based on school attendance from January 2008 to June 2008 was denied because the Veteran did not notify VA within one year of C.J.'s 18th birthday and commencement of schooling.

The Board has determined that additional development is necessary to determine the etiology of the Veteran's right eye disability, which may be related to service. The case is being remanded for further examination and opinion.

The Veteran's appeal for a higher disability rating for adjustment disorder with depressed mood has been withdrawn by her attorney, resulting in the dismissal of the case.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to the need for a VA dental examination to determine if the Veteran's dental trauma is related to his service.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient medical opinion regarding whether the Veteran's LBBB disability is proximately caused or aggravated by his service-connected OSA.

The Board has decided that the withholding of VA disability compensation to recoup $15,000 of separation pay was improper and has ordered a remand for further investigation.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's current psychiatric condition, diagnosed as Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Mood and Conduct, is at least as likely as not related to events during his service. Therefore, service connection for this condition is granted.

The Veteran's special monthly pension was improperly terminated, and the Appellant is now entitled to accrued benefits for her mother based on expenses incurred.

The Veteran's claim for an increased rating for his duodenal ulcer resulted in a grant of SMC at the housebound rate effective April 12, 2011. The Board found that this decision was clearly and unmistakably erroneous (CUE) due to the RO's failure to consider whether he was entitled to SMC at the time of the increased rating claim.

The Veteran's appeal for service connection for a skin condition has been dismissed due to the death of the Veteran.

The Veteran's bilateral lower extremity peripheral vascular disease with atherosclerosis is granted as service connected due to herbicide exposure. The reduction of his prostate cancer rating from 100% to 40% is remanded for further review.

The Board dismissed the appeal as there was no proper appeal of a VA adjudicatory determination, and the Appellant did not appeal an accrued benefits decision.

The Veteran's VA benefits were subjected to DMC withholdings without proper due process, and the Board has ordered further actions including a paid and due audit of his account.

The Board has granted readjudication of the service connection for a right foot condition and has granted service connection for right foot pain. The Veteran's current right foot pain is related to his in-service injury.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims of service connection for right hand arthritis and compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for left eye blindness, finding that there was no additional disability attributable to VA care or treatment.

The appeal is dismissed because Convergent USA, the entity that filed the Notice of Disagreement, did not provide the medical services in question and therefore cannot initiate appellate review.