Other conditions Board decisions

The Veteran's service is not considered to meet the requirements for eligibility for VA nonservice-connected pension benefits due to lack of qualifying wartime service.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for congestive heart failure, finding that there is no evidence of a current disability related to service and concluding that the Veteran did not meet the criteria for service connection.

The Board denied an earlier effective date for the award of additional compensation benefits for the Veteran's spouse, as he did not notify VA of his marriage until October 9, 2018, which is more than a year after the last rating action.

The Veteran's TDIU was granted on November 28, 2008, when he had a single service-connected disability evaluated at 70 percent disabling and was found unable to obtain and maintain gainful employment. The effective date is denied as earlier dates are not supported by the evidence.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for an eye disability, excluding diabetic retinopathy, is being remanded due to the need for a new examination and opinion regarding the etiology of his diagnosed conditions.

The Board has remanded the case due to an inadequate VA examination in determining the severity of the Veteran's right second toe disability, including DJD, hammer toe, and residuals of a fracture. The examiner was not able to provide information on additional functional loss during flare-ups or repeated use.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to a lack of a copy of a 2012 examination regarding the Veteran's colon cancer. The examiner opined that it was less likely than not caused by contaminated water at Camp Lejeune. Additional development is needed, including obtaining another opinion and any outstanding VA treatment records.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a skin disability, finding that there was no evidence to support a direct relationship between his current condition and his military service. The Board also found insufficient evidence to establish secondary service connection based on his service-connected PTSD or diabetes.

The Board dismissed the appeal because no timely and adequate substantive appeal was submitted, leaving the issue unresolved.

The Board has remanded the claims for service connection for bilateral hand and foot conditions due to new VA examinations being necessary.

The Board denied service connection for benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH), finding that there is no evidence of BPH during active service and insufficient medical opinion to support a nexus between current BPH and service-connected conditions or herbicide exposure.

The Board denied a rating in excess of 30 percent for pleural plaques prior to November 1, 2014 and granted a 10 percent rating from November 1, 2014 to June 28, 2016. From June 28, 2016 onward, the Board denied any rating in excess of 10 percent for pleural plaques.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for left eye disability, finding that the evidence did not support a link between her current condition and her military service.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded for further evaluation of his service-connected duodenitis and to determine if he requires a higher level of care due to only his service-connected disabilities.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining updated VA records and an orthopedic examination to assess the current severity of the Veteran's service-connected knee disabilities. The AOJ is also instructed to consider whether referral for extraschedular increased ratings is warranted.

The Veteran's tardive dyskinesia is characterized by tics and spasms to a moderate level, warranting an initial compensable rating of 10 percent.

The Board has determined that the Appellant's submission of an invoice for funeral expenses is considered an informal claim for accrued benefits. However, due to inconsistencies in the evidence and need for further development, the appeal is being remanded to determine if the Appellant qualifies as a proper accrued benefits claimant.

The Board found that the appellant's discharge was due to willful and persistent misconduct, not insanity. As a result, his service is considered dishonorable, which bars him from receiving VA benefits.

The Veteran's appeal was dismissed due to their death, and the case is now closed.

The Veteran's skin condition claim is being remanded due to the need for clarification on whether topical corticosteroid treatments constitute systemic therapy, as per Johnson v. Shulkin and Burton v. Wilkie.