Other conditions Board decisions

The Veteran's claim for service connection for reactive airway disease has been fully granted, and the appeal is dismissed as there are no unresolved issues.

The Board has determined that the severance of service connection for IPF was improper and has granted restoration of service connection for IPF, effective October 1, 2025.

The Veteran's death is not service-connected, but he was receiving VA home health care. The appellant is granted burial benefits and a plot/interment allowance.

The Board dismissed the appeal regarding service connection for neck spasms because the appellant requested to withdraw his appeal.

The Board has determined that there was a predecisional duty to assist error and requires the AOJ to correct it by attempting to contact the appellant by telephone regarding her marital status for DIC benefits.

The Veteran's chronic diarrhea began during active service and the Board has granted service connection for this condition.

The Board has remanded the case due to a duty-to-assist error in obtaining private treatment records from Dr. Elmahdi M. Saeed, who treats the Veteran for his service-connected disabilities.

The Veteran's Tietze's Syndrome has been granted an initial rating of 10 percent, effective from December 8, 2014. The issue of service connection for a cervical spine disability and chest pain is remanded.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities caused his regular need for aid and attendance, leading to a grant of special monthly compensation (SMC) based on the need for aid and attendance from June 5, 2008.

The Board has determined that the July 2024 decision denying eligibility for PCAFC benefits is legally inadequate and requires further development to ensure a thorough review of all medical opinions.

The Board has decided to remand the matter of whether a $3,020.11 overpayment of VA compensation benefits was validly created due to an error in the creation process.

The Board denied the veteran's request for educational assistance benefits under Chapter 33 of Title 38, United States Code (known as the Post-9/11 GI Bill) for his ATP Certification Training from July 7, 2023, to July 13, 2023, because it did not relate to a single career field and therefore could not be approved.

The Board has decided to remand the Veteran's claim for a right hand disability, as the examination and medical opinion provided by VA were inadequate. The case will be returned to the AOJ for further evaluation.

The Board denied a survivor's pension because the appellant's household income exceeded the applicable maximum annual pension rate (MAPR). The burial expenses and unreimbursed medical expenses were not considered in reducing her household income for pension purposes.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for a dental condition, including tooth loss due to injury, is being remanded as the VA examination scheduled in March 2025 was not conducted due to the Veteran's failure to appear. The Board finds that the Veteran should be rescheduled for a new VA examination.

The Board has granted an initial rating of 50 percent for the Veteran's trigeminal neuralgia and a separate rating of 10 percent for his olfactory neuralgia, both based on their severity.

The Board denied attorney fees for past-due benefits awarded in April 2025 as the decision was the initial AOJ decision on the merits of the Veteran's service connection claim.

The Board has determined that the appeal regarding a VCCP referral for outpatient care at Colorado Springs Oncology cannot be considered because there is no initial adverse decision by the AOJ and the matter does not come before the Board by way of a notice of disagreement. The appeal must therefore be dismissed.

The Veteran's appeal for service connection of a left foot heel spur was dismissed due to his death during the pendency of the appeal.

The Board previously remanded the case to correct a regulatory duty, but the AOJ's decision is legally deficient as it limited its determination to evidence of record through only February 17, 2024. The AOJ did not consider all new evidence obtained after the Board's remand.