Other conditions Board decisions

The Board found that the Veteran's right eye post-surgical residuals, to include visual loss, are not proximately due to VA carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, error in judgment or similar instance of fault.

The Veteran's service-connected traumatic arthritis, L4-L5 with disc protrusion, meets the criteria for a 40 percent rating based on severe IVDS.,The Veteran's service-connected traumatic arthritis, T11-T12 with protrusion, meets the criteria for a 20 percent rating.

The Veteran does not currently have liver cancer and has not had it during the pendency of this claim, meaning at any time since filing this claim. Therefore, his claim for service connection for liver cancer is denied.

The Veteran's appeal for specially adapted housing was dismissed due to his death during the pendency of the appeal.

The Board has remanded the case due to a need for additional development, including obtaining VA treatment records and Social Security Administration disability benefits documents.

The Board denied the appellant's request to reopen her claim of entitlement to service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death, finding that no new and material evidence had been submitted since the January 2008 rating decision.

The Board has granted service connection for left lower extremity and right lower extremity peripheral neuropathy, finding that the Veteran's cold injury during service is directly related to his current disabilities. The claim for a left upper extremity disorder remains pending.

The Veteran's service did not include wartime service, and therefore the appellant is not eligible for nonservice-connected death pension benefits.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for a new VA examination to assess the severity of her service-connected left foot disability, and for adjudication of whether other foot problems are related to this condition. Additionally, she must be provided with notice regarding her claim for TDIU.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for a left leg disability and Alzheimer's disease have been denied. The Board also found that the Veteran is not in need of regular aid and attendance due to her service-connected major depressive disorder with psychotic features.,There was no evidence of current disabilities for which service connection could be granted, and the Veteran did not meet the percentage requirements for TDIU prior to March 1, 2011.

The Veteran's overpayment of VA educational assistance benefits in the amount of $4,200.05 is waived due to circumstances indicating undue hardship and against equity and good conscience.

The Veteran's stepdaughter was not granted an extension of the delimiting date for Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits beyond January 24, 2010 due to various reasons including her failure to suspend pursuit of education programs and lack of active duty or National Guard service.

The Veteran's daughter is not eligible for Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) under Title 38, United States Code, Chapter 35 because she was over the age of 26 on the effective date of the Veteran's permanent total disability rating.

The Board denied the Veteran's appeal, finding that his election for Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits was irrevocable and thus cannot be rescinded.

The appellant is not eligible for Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits under Chapter 35, Title 38, United States Code because she reached her 26th birthday before the effective date of basic eligibility.

The case is being remanded due to the need for additional documentation and a paid and due audit. The Veteran's claim will be reconsidered after these actions.

The Veteran's 100% disability rating and basic eligibility for Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits were awarded in February 2009 with an effective date of August 8, 2003. The appellant's application was received by VA on August 9, 2010, which is not within the one-year time limit from the initial rating decision for retroactive DEA benefits.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the applicable theories of service connection and further development is needed.

The Veteran's appeal was dismissed due to his death during the pendency of the appeal.

The Board has determined that the Appellant is not the surviving spouse of the Veteran and therefore, she is not entitled to restoration of DIC benefits.