Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete records, and further development is needed.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities do not preclude him from securing and maintaining substantially gainful employment, thus the claim for TDIU is denied.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient medical opinions regarding the Veteran's service connection claim for malignant skin neoplasm and his scars as residuals of that condition.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to conflicting medical opinions regarding the Veteran's service-connected benign prostatic hypertrophy and its impact on his voiding dysfunction.

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

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the Veteran's exposure to herbicide agents at RTAFB U-Tapao, and a formal finding from the JSRRC is needed.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded due to the need for proper development and review of his waiver request for overpayment of educational assistance benefits under Chapter 33, Title 38, United States Code (known as the Post-9/11 GI Bill).

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient evidence regarding whether the Veteran's cause of death, including his myeloid leukemia, was caused by exposure to herbicides such as Agent Orange during service. The VA must provide a new medical opinion on this issue.

The Veteran seeks increased compensation for his daughter's dependency due to her full-time school attendance. The claim is denied as the evidence of school attendance was not provided within one year of the start of a course of instruction, and N.S. had already turned 23.

The Board has granted service connection for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma due to exposure to herbicide agents, finding that the Veteran was exposed to these agents during his service at Korat Air Force Base in Thailand and that this disease is presumptively associated with such exposure.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a dental condition, finding that there was no evidence of trauma or injury during military service and concluding that any current dental conditions were due to periodontal disease.

The Board has granted service connection for a dry eye disability, but denied service connection for a lung disorder.

The Veteran's claim for a higher initial rating for squamous cell carcinoma status post left upper lobectomy, rated as 30 percent disabling prior to October 2, 2010 and 100 percent thereafter, was denied. The current ratings are appropriate given the lack of respiratory symptoms until October 2, 2010.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims of service connection for a left arm and hand condition, as well as his claim for a rating in excess of 20 percent for his left shoulder disability. The evidence did not support the Veteran's assertions that these conditions were related to service or secondary to his service-connected left shoulder disability.

Your appeal for payment or reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses has been dismissed.

The appeal was dismissed due to the death of the appellant.

The Veteran is seeking service connection for a left hip disability that he contends is related to his military service, specifically his MOS as a paratrooper. The VA has remanded the case due to inadequate medical opinions and the need for additional evidence.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for basal cell carcinoma, finding that there was no evidence linking his current condition to in-service herbicide exposure or other events during his period of active duty.

The Board has decided to remand the case for a new medical opinion regarding whether the Veteran's current disabilities are related to VA care following his April 12, 2001 surgery. The opinion should address if any additional disability is due to negligence or lack of proper skill on the part of VA and if it was reasonably foreseeable.

The Board denied the claim for death pension benefits, finding that the appellant's income exceeded the required maximum annual pension rate (MAPR). The decision was based on incorrect figures regarding her SSA income and medical expenses.