Other conditions Board decisions

The Board granted an initial rating of 20 percent for the Veteran's TMJ syndrome, status-post jaw surgery, effective January 5, 2012. The rating was increased to 20 percent from September 21, 2015.

The Veteran's appeal was dismissed due to the death of the appellant, and no service connection issues were decided.

The Board has granted an earlier effective date of July 31, 2008 for the award of special monthly compensation (SMC) based on 38 U.S.C. § 1114(r)-(1). The March 2016 rating decision was found to have made a clear and unmistakable error in applying the law or regulations.

The appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's death, and no service connection issues were decided.

The Veteran's claim for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability prior to October 20, 2020 was denied as the evidence did not show that his service-connected disabilities rendered him unable to obtain and follow all forms of substantially gainful activity.

The Veteran's left epididymal cyst has been consistently manifested by pain, but not to the extent that it requires long-term drug therapy, two hospitalizations per year, or continuous intensive management. The Board denied a compensable rating for this condition and found no need for extraschedular consideration.

The Board has remanded the cases due to a lack of consideration regarding whether the Veteran's ingestion of prescribed Paxil caused his obesity and prevented him from exercising.

The Veteran's appeal was dismissed due to their death, and no service connection is granted.

The Veteran's lung condition, diagnosed as idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), is not considered to have been caused by or related to his service, including exposure to dust and smoke during his deployment in Southwest Asia. The Board found that the Veteran had no objective evidence of a qualifying chronic disability during service and that IPF is not associated with Gulf War exposure.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete records and lack of a detailed accounting showing how the Veteran's overpayment of VRAP benefits was calculated. The AOJ is required to obtain missing documents, create a detailed accounting, and consider the Veteran's lay evidence submitted in August 2020.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for VR&E services due to his service-connected disabilities making it not feasible for him to achieve a vocational goal of attaining a Ph.D. and maintaining full-time work in a teaching position.

The Board has granted service connection for a skin disorder, finding it is at least as likely as not related to the Veteran's active military service. The decision is based on post-service treatment records and VA opinions that link the current skin condition to his time in Afghanistan.

The Veteran's right eye disability is currently rated at 30 percent, and the Board has determined that a higher rating is not warranted. The claim for TDIU was also denied as the combined evaluation of all service-connected disabilities does not meet the criteria for TDIU under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a).

The Board has reopened the Veteran's claims for service connection for neck and esophageal conditions due to new evidence submitted. The issues are remanded for further evaluation.

The Board has determined that a VA examination is needed to determine if the Veteran's low grade adenocarcinoma of the hard palate may be related to his exposure to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune during service.

The Board denied compensation based on VA fault for the left foot amputation and also denied service connection for it as secondary to a service-connected disability.

The case is being remanded due to the need for additional development regarding a compensable rating for gynecomastia.

The Board has granted service connection for imbalance, concentration difficulties, and dizziness as part of the Veteran's already service-connected headaches.

The Board denied the appellant's claim as she did not timely file a notice of disagreement with her March 12, 2014 denial.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient examination findings regarding the Veteran's eye surgery residual condition. The Veteran needs a new VA examination to provide a diagnosis or diagnoses that account for all of his documented eye symptomatology and set forth an opinion as to the likely etiology of any diagnosed eye surgery residual condition.