Other conditions Board decisions

The Board denied service connection for a liver condition due to herbicide exposure, but granted service connection for cataracts.

The Board has determined that the claims for service connection and TDIU are remanded due to inadequate medical opinions and other procedural issues.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient consideration of the etiology and pathophysiology of the Veteran's cardiovascular condition, including chest pain experienced during service. The claim is now pending for a new examination.

The Veteran's right foot calcaneus and tenosynovitis were granted initial ratings of 10% from June 12, 2009 through March 29, 2016, and 20% since March 30, 2016.

The Veteran's right thumb disability is currently rated at 20 percent, the maximum rating available for limitation of motion. The Board found no additional functional loss or impairment that would warrant a higher rating.

The Board has remanded the claim for service connection for essential tremors due to insufficient evidence regarding its relationship to service, including potential secondary effects from other service-connected conditions.

The Veteran's TDIU claim is remanded due to duty-to-assist errors, including the need for SSA and OPM records related to his employment status.

The Board dismissed the appeal because the claim was resolved in favor of the appellant during the pendency of the appeal, as the episode of care was approved in its entirety in July 2021.

The Veteran's niece and guardian was granted non-service-connected burial benefits as the Veteran had been receiving non-service-connected pension at the time of his death.

The Board has decided that there is not enough information to determine the amount of the Veteran's education overpayment and whether a waiver is appropriate. The case is being sent back for further action.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for memory loss is denied as there is no evidence of a current diagnosis and the preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that his memory problems are related to his active duty service.,The Veteran's claim for service connection for tremors is denied as there is no evidence of a current diagnosis and the preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that his tremors are related to his active duty service.

The Board has decided that it does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal regarding payment of non-VA medical services provided from June 8, 2020 to June 11, 2020. The decision is remanded for further action including providing adequate notice and ensuring all evidence upon which the decision is based is identified in the notice.

Your appeal has been dismissed because the costs associated with your medical care have already been paid in full by VA.

The Veteran's service-connected impairment of rectal sphincter control precludes him from obtaining and maintaining substantially gainful employment.

The appellant does not have spina bifida and her mother is not a Vietnam Veteran, so the claim for benefits under 38 U.S.C. 1805 or 1815 for spina bifida is denied.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to jurisdictional issues and the need for adequate notice regarding payment of non-VA medical services provided on December 2, 2019.

Your appeal has been dismissed because the VA AOJ administratively approved your claim for payment of medical services provided from April 16, 2020 to April 30, 2020.

The Board has determined that the matter is not ripe for appellate review as all necessary development has not been completed. Specifically, the outcome of apportionment cases generally depends on the financial status of the parties and VA needs to obtain information from SSA regarding payments made since September 2019 to the Veteran concerning any disability award, including any offsets and payments related to support of the minor child A.F.

The Board has determined that the apportionment of the Veteran's VA disability compensation benefits in the amount of $227.00 per month awarded to A.G., on behalf of S.G., was proper, as the Veteran did not reasonably discharge his responsibility for supporting his minor child and A.G. demonstrated financial hardship.

The Veteran's stroke is not considered to be related to his military service, including exposure to herbicides like Agent Orange. The Board found insufficient evidence linking the stroke to service.