Other conditions Board decisions

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for a skin disability and an allergic disability, finding that no earlier effective date could be granted due to lack of evidence showing entitlement prior to May 6, 2013.

The Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder, characterized by mild and transient symptoms such as occasional mood changes and sleep disturbances, does not meet the criteria for a higher rating than 10 percent prior to June 30, 2016.

The Veteran's arrhythmia, hypertension, diabetic nephropathy with hypertension, peripheral neuropathy of the left and right lower extremities, and cataracts have not met the criteria for increased evaluations under applicable rating codes.

The Board found the evidence insufficient to establish that the Veteran's mother, M.M.B., could be considered a dependent parent for purposes of receiving additional compensation.

The Veteran withdrew her appeal regarding the issue of entitlement to TDIU.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for service connection and TDIU due to inadequate VA examinations in previous decisions. The case is now pending with instructions to provide a new VA examination and review of the claim.

The Veteran's appeals for increased ratings were denied. The Board found that the evidence did not meet the criteria for an increased rating under any applicable diagnostic codes.

The Veteran's service-connected peripheral neuropathy of the upper extremities has been granted increased ratings, while his service-connected peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities and TDIU have also been granted. The effective dates for these decisions are not specified.

The Board denied the appellant's eligibility for participation in the Veterans Retraining Assistance Program (VRAP) due to his character of discharge, which was found to be dishonorable and a bar to VA benefits.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded for additional development, including a new VA examination to assess the severity of his service-connected narcolepsy and separate evaluation of his sleep apnea.

The Veteran's right lower extremity thrombophlebitis is rated at 40 percent since May 26, 2016. Her iron deficiency anemia has been rated as noncompensable throughout the appeal period. The Veteran's status post pulmonary embolism has also been rated as noncompensable prior to April 5, 2010, and compensable beginning that date.

The Board found that the Veteran's epididymitis did not clearly and unmistakably exist prior to service, nor was it aggravated during service. The evidence does not support a finding of direct service connection.

The Veteran's service-connected varicose veins do not preclude him from securing or following substantially gainful employment.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral hip bursitis is being remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining his service treatment records and arranging for a VA examination.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's anemia, endometriosis, and left hip degenerative joint disease are all related to service. The appeals for these conditions have been granted.

The Veteran's claim for an increased rating for chronic gastritis with duodenitis is being remanded due to the submission of new evidence that has not been reviewed by the AOJ.

The Veteran's pension benefits were granted in May 2009, but the RO found that a fiduciary was not appointed for handling these funds. The Appellant is seeking reimbursement for expenses she paid on behalf of her father after his death. The case is being remanded to complete further development and determine if any accrued benefits are due.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including scheduling a VA dental examination to determine if the Veteran's loss of all teeth is related to service. The appeal will be reconsidered after this additional development.

The Board finds that the Veteran's spouse meets the factual definition for aid and attendance set under 3.352(a) due to multiple medical conditions including failure to thrive and chronic pain, resulting in her inability to feed herself, manage her finances, or perform self-care activities.

The Board has determined that the appellant's current bilateral foot disability did not pre-exist service and was not aggravated by his brief period of active duty training (ACDUTRA). Therefore, service connection for a bilateral foot disability is denied.