Other conditions Board decisions

The Veteran's claim for an increased rating of anxiety disorder was granted in January 2019 with a 50% evaluation effective July 29, 2011. The appellant received attorney fees based on the past-due benefits awarded from that date to the grant of the decision. Additional attorney fees are denied as the total award of past-due benefits was already accounted for in the fee decision.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to missing documents regarding the appellant's intent to file a claim for survivors pension and/or dependency and indemnity compensation. The VA needs to locate these records and associate them with the claims file.

The Board has determined that the procedural steps for a simultaneously contested claim have not been completed, and thus remands the case to ensure full compliance with the required procedures.

The Board dismissed the appeal because the drill pay withholding for FY 2018 was removed, and there are no remaining allegations of error.

The Board has determined that the matter is not ripe for appellate review due to procedural issues and has ordered a remand to ensure full compliance with contested claims procedures.

The Board denied service connection for residuals of a right foot injury, finding that the evidence did not support a link between current disabilities and an in-service injury.

The Veteran's left eye blindness, resulting from surgery performed by VA in October 2008, was not caused by any fault on the part of VA. The Board denied compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for residuals of a head injury, dental problems, and sleep problems due to lack of relevant new evidence.

The Veteran's diagnosed pneumoconiosis, restrictive lung disease, and pleural plaques are related to asbestos exposure during his active duty service. The Board has granted the claim for a respiratory disability.

The Board dismissed the appeal of the appellant's claim for an earlier effective date for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) under 38 U.S.C. § 1151, as affirmed by the Court.

The Board dismissed the appeal because there was no overpayment and the Veteran was paid correctly based on the earlier effective dates for service connection and SMC.

The Veteran's income did not exceed the maximum annual pension rate, allowing him to receive nonservice-connected pension with special monthly pension.

The Board has decided that the VA overpayment claim should be remanded due to a duty-to-assist error. The Veteran argues he did not receive military pay and VA disability compensation benefits at the same time in fiscal year 2018, but this needs to be verified through an audit of his service personnel records.

The Board has granted service connection for right upper extremity motor deficit, right lower extremity hyperreflexia, and left lower extremity hyperreflexia due to exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam.

The Veteran's appeal for a reduction in his pension payment rate due to receipt of Social Security Administration (SSA) payments is denied as he has not provided any additional evidence or argument.

The Board dismissed the appeal due to the death of the appellant, as the claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability has become moot.

The Veteran died of a nonservice-connected condition while hospitalized by VA, and the appellant incurred expenses for his funeral and burial. The Board granted entitlement to burial benefits based on these facts.

The Board has dismissed the appeals for service connection of disequilibrium, ataxia, head trauma, and residuals of right elbow injury as it does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate these issues under the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA).

The Veteran's claim for service connection for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, or mycosis fungoides, is denied as the evidence does not support a direct nexus to his military service. The effective date of service connection remains March 14, 2017.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to a procedural error in evaluating new evidence, and will need to use the correct legal standard under the AMA framework.