Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has determined that further development is necessary due to the need for a VA opinion regarding whether the Veteran's death was caused by exposure to Agent Orange in service. The claim will be remanded for this purpose.

The Veteran's son is granted special monthly pension benefits based on the need for aid and attendance, effective from September to October 2009. The appellant is also granted nonservice-connected burial benefits.

The Board has determined that there is a threshold question regarding whether the appellant is a proper claimant for accrued benefits. The case must be remanded to determine if the appellant can be considered as a qualified claimant, such as by bearing the last expenses of sickness and burial of the Veteran's widow.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including a VA examination to assess the current severity of his service-connected postoperative inguinal hernias and any right testicle reduction or hypogonadism. The case may also be referred for extraschedular evaluation if warranted.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for osteoporosis, to include as secondary to the service-connected diabetes mellitus disability is being remanded due to inadequate medical opinion regarding the etiology of his condition and whether it was aggravated by his service-connected diabetes.

The Board found that the Veteran was not a fugitive felon for the period in question and therefore, the overpayment of $11,447.40 is invalid.

The Veteran now has cataracts and hypertensive retinopathy, which are as likely as not caused or aggravated by his service-connected diabetes mellitus or hypertension.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining medical records and providing a supplemental opinion from an appropriate provider regarding whether the Veteran's liver disease is related to service or Agent Orange exposure.

The Veteran's service is not considered during a period of war as recognized by VA, thus there is no legal basis for nonservice-connected pension.

The Veteran's eligibility for education benefits under Chapter 33 of Title 38 and Chapter 1607 of Title 10 means she is ineligible to receive VRAP benefits, which the Board denied.

The Board has dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's death, as the Veteran died during the pendency of the appeal.

The Board has decided to remand the case for scheduling a hearing before the Board at the RO, due to the Veteran not reporting for the previously scheduled hearing.

The Veteran's discharge was not honorable, and therefore he is ineligible for education benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for education assistance benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill-Selected Reserve (MGIB-SR) program due to her failure to meet eligibility requirements.

The Oregon Institute of Technology is not considered a community college or technical school, which are the required types of educational institutions for VRAP eligibility. Therefore, the Veteran's claim for VA educational assistance benefits under VRAP is denied.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for DEA benefits prior to May 7, 2011, finding that the earliest possible date for the award of such benefits is one-year prior to the date of claim (May 7, 2011). The Appellant argued for equitable tolling due to exceptional circumstances but was denied as VA does not have authority to grant benefits on an equitable basis.

The Board denied eligibility for VRAP benefits due to the Veteran's dishonorable service, finding that his last period of active service was under conditions other than honorable.

The Veteran's unauthorized medical expenses incurred at the Sarasota Memorial Hospital on January 10, 2013 were not reimbursable because the treatment was not provided in a medical emergency of such nature that a prudent layperson would have reasonably expected delay in seeking immediate medical attention to be hazardous to his life or health.

The Veteran's small, postoperative ventral hernia has not been manifested by weakening of the abdominal wall and indication for a supporting belt. As such, his disability does not more nearly approximate the criteria for a compensable rating under Diagnostic Code 7339.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for malignant squamous cell carcinoma was denied as there is no medical evidence of a nexus between the cancer and his military service, including his claimed cold exposure in Korea.