Other conditions Board decisions

The Veteran's claims for increased rating and effective date, as well as his TDIU claim, are being remanded due to procedural issues related to the submission of medical records.

The Veteran's disability rating for service-connected headaches was restored from 30% to 50%, effective February 5, 2020. The reduction in the rating was found to be improper due to procedural violations and lack of evidence showing actual improvement in the Veteran's ability to function under ordinary conditions.

The Veteran's claim for waiver of overpayment was denied as the creation of the debt was valid and there was no indication of fraud, misrepresentation or bad faith on his part. The Board found that recovery would not be against equity and good conscience.

The Veteran's stroke was not incurred in service and is not etiologically related to active service.,The Veteran's chronic motor/sensory problems are secondary to the non-service-connected stroke.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient evidence regarding whether Prednisone use at the time of the November 2012 surgical procedure was related to the September 2011 Remicade infiltration event and if so, whether it was caused by negligence or lack of care from VA.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for PLS, finding that there is no evidence of a nexus between his current diagnosis and service or herbicide agent exposure.

The Board has remanded the case due to an inadequate medical opinion regarding the relationship between the Veteran's left thumb disability and service. The matter is being returned for further evaluation.

The Veteran's left peroneal tendinosis with subluxating peroneal tendon is granted a rating of 30 percent, effective from November 21, 2017. The extension of a temporary total evaluation for the service-connected left ankle condition requiring convalescence until November 7, 2014 is also granted.

The Board denied service connection for gastric cancer and the cause of death due to gastric cancer, finding that there was no evidence linking the Veteran's condition to his military service or any service-connected disabilities.

The Board denied the appellant's claims for VA death benefits and accrued benefits due to a lack of qualifying service in the Philippine Commonwealth Army, including recognized guerrillas. The appellant's father had no verified service record.

The Board has granted the Veteran's claim for service connection for his left hip disability, finding that it is secondary to his service-connected left ankle disability.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for an initial compensable disability rating for residuals of right lung surgery, finding that there was no evidence to support a higher rating based on current pulmonary function test results.

The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate examination for determining the severity of service-connected left thumb limitation of motion. The Veteran needs an adequate VA examination that includes all required findings and testing as per Correia v. McDonald (2016).

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for a bladder disability, including as due to her service-connected PTSD. The case is being returned to the AOJ for further development and consideration.

The Board found that the appellant was insane at the time of misconduct leading to his discharge, thus lifting the regulatory bar preventing him from receiving VA benefits.

The Board denied service connection for an acquired vision defect and polyps, finding that the Veteran did not have a current diagnosis of these conditions related to his military service.

The Board has granted service connection for right lower extremity meralgia paresthetica as secondary to the Veteran's service-connected coronary artery disease. The claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for a groin injury following cardiac catherization is dismissed.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings and TDIU have been remanded due to inadequate examinations in the previous appeals. The Veteran is also not currently entitled to a TDIU, but may be eligible upon future grant of an increased rating.

The Board has determined that the VA medical opinion provided was inadequate and remands the case for further development, including obtaining a new VA medical opinion to address the Veteran's claims regarding his prostate disorder.

The Board dismissed the claim because both the Veteran and his wife died during the appeal process, making it moot.