Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has determined that the Veteran's pancreatic cancer, which should have been service-connected due to exposure to radiation during his military service, substantially contributed to his death. As a result, the claim for service connection for cause of death is granted.

The appeal has been dismissed due to the Veteran's death.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for recognition as a child of the Veteran for VA benefits purposes, including survivor's pension due to her marriage and subsequent divorce.

The Veteran's partial pancreatectomy with chronic constipation is currently rated at 30 percent, which is the maximum rating available under current criteria. The Board finds that her symptoms do not warrant a higher rating.

The Board has granted service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, specifically other specified trauma and stressor-related disorder, which the Veteran contends is related to in-service helicopter incidents. The decision finds that the evidence supports a finding of a nexus between the current condition and service.

The Board has dismissed the appeal due to the death of the Appellant, and no further action will be taken on her claim for VA educational assistance benefits.

The Veteran's bilateral hip disability was manifest by painful motion prior to March 28, 2025. From that date, the disability manifested as limitation of adduction due to inability to cross legs.,The Board found no evidence of limitation of extension or impairment of thigh prior to March 28, 2025.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the cause of death and its relation to service. The Veteran's atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and colon cancer are being evaluated for their relationship to toxic exposure during service.

The Veteran's claim for an initial compensable rating for service-connected chronic diarrhea is remanded due to the inadequacy of the August 2020 examination report, which did not consider the ameliorative effects of medication on his condition.

The Board denied a compensable disability rating for the Veteran's deviated nasal septum, finding that there were no compensable symptoms and that the evidence did not support a higher rating.

The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits was denied as the criteria were not met. The Veteran did not have a combined rating of 100% disabling prior to April 27, 2023.

The Veteran's death prevented the appellant from being recognized as a substitute claimant for accrued benefits purposes. The Board denied the request due to lack of evidence showing eligibility and no indication that the appellant bore expenses related to the Veteran's last sickness and burial.

The Board granted service connection for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma on a presumptive basis under the PACT Act, effective March 2, 2017.

The Veteran withdrew their appeal for service connection of premature ventricular contractions (PVCs). The Board dismissed the appeal as a result.

The Veteran's appeal for an effective date earlier than November 14, 2019 and an initial compensable disability rating has been withdrawn.

The Board denied service connection for a right thumb disability with nerve damage, finding no credible evidence of an in-service injury and insufficient medical opinion to support the claim.

The Veteran's right hip femoral acetabular impingement syndrome (flexion) did not meet the criteria for a compensable rating at any point during the appeal period.,The Veteran's bilateral inguinal hernia was found to be noncompensable based on lack of recurrent or well-supported condition.

The Board has remanded the case due to a duty to assist error and needs additional medical opinions regarding the relationship between the Veteran's service-connected lumbar spine disability and his incontinence.

The Veteran is granted up to 36 months of Post-9/11 GI Bill (Chapter 33) educational assistance benefits, subject to the statutory 81-month cap.

The Board dismissed the appeal because it does not have jurisdiction to review the medical determination made by VHA prosthetics regarding the issuance of a power mobility device, scooter.