Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete information regarding the Veteran's income, employment, and medical expenses from 1997 to 2003. The VA is requested to obtain these records.

The Board has granted the appellant's appeal to correct the effective date of termination of her VA survivor's pension benefits from October 1, 2000 to November 1, 2000. The overpayment claim for recovery was also resolved in favor of the appellant with a full waiver of the debt.

The Board denied the appeal as the Veteran did not file a timely Notice of Disagreement (NOD) in response to the November 21, 2012 rating decision.

The Board has granted service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death and dismissed the DIC benefits claim as moot due to the grant of service connection.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings for peptic ulcer disease and midline hernia, status post muscle pull were denied as the evidence did not meet the criteria for a higher rating under VA regulations.

The Board has determined that the VA examinations conducted in October 2019 were inadequate and remanded for further development, including obtaining medical opinions regarding the Veteran's claimed disabilities due to ionizing radiation exposure. The case is now being returned to the AOJ for this purpose.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient consideration of private treatment records from August 2003, which indicated sinus bradycardia associated with episodes of dizziness and light-headedness. The Veteran's current SSND disorder is being reviewed for a medical opinion on whether it is at least as likely as not related to or caused by the August 2003 diagnosis.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding herbicide exposure during service, as well as a need for further medical opinion on the etiology of the Veteran's blood in urine condition.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for blurred vision, finding that there is no current diagnosis of a vision impairment attributable to his service-connected Chiari malformation and its residuals.

The Veteran's residuals of left tibia fracture are currently rated as 10 percent disabling, and the Board finds that this rating is appropriate given the current evidence.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims of service connection for left and right hip avascular necrosis, finding that there is no evidence linking these conditions to his active duty service or his service-connected lumbar spine disability.

The appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's death, and no jurisdiction remains for further action.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been received to reopen the issue of whether the character of the appellant’s service is a bar to VA benefits. The case is remanded for further development, including obtaining medical opinions regarding the appellant's insanity at the time of his discharge.

The Board has remanded the case due to conflicting evidence regarding whether the Veteran withdrew from her online course in March 2017. The AOJ needs to clarify this issue and consider new evidence before making a decision.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for myelodysplastic syndrome, which was denied due to exposure to herbicides, has been dismissed because the Veteran died before a decision could be made.

The Veteran's claim for an initial, noncompensable rating for onychomycosis of both feet has been dismissed due to the death of the appellant.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's preexisting alternating exotropia was aggravated by service, and thus service connection is granted.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal for an increased rating of his service-connected left eye disability, leaving the issue dismissed.

The Board denied service connection for a blood disorder as there is no current diagnosis of the condition in the medical records.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for service connection due to in-service cold weather injuries and a pulmonary embolism. The case is being returned to the Board for further development, including an addendum opinion on whether the Veteran's current foot problems are related to his active service.