The Board has determined that the Appellant is entitled to a monthly pension of $49.24 per month from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2007.
The deciding factor: The evidence showed that the Appellant's unreimbursed medical expenses in 2006 were recurring and likely to continue at the same rate, allowing them to be deducted from her income for pension eligibility purposes.
- Claimed conditions
- Not specified in this decision
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- 49%
- Decision date
- March 10, 2010
- Citation
- 1009031
This is a plain-language summary generated by AI from a public Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision. It can contain errors — always verify against the original. Look up the original decision on VA.gov (opens in a new tab) using citation 1009031.
What this means for you
A grant means the Board agreed the veteran was entitled to the benefit. Decisions like this show the kind of evidence and arguments that tend to succeed for claims like it.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Denied
The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for his service-connected lumbar myositis, psychoneurosis and conversion hysteria, residuals of shrapnel wounds of the left thigh and pelvis with retained foreign bodies and scars, and residuals of shell fragment wounds of the right thigh and left leg. The veteran was also denied entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board remands the issue of entitlement to service connection for a back disability due to a duty to assist error, specifically regarding VA's failure to provide the Veteran with a VA examination prior to the rating decision.
- Granted
The Board granted a 50 percent rating for the Veteran's migraine headaches based on prostrating attacks occurring more than once a month and severe economic inadaptability.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's appeal for special monthly compensation based on loss of use of his left foot, as there was no evidence showing that the service-connected conditions resulted in functional limitation equal to that of amputation of the left foot with prosthesis.
We are not the VA. Veterans’ Rights is an independent resource built for veterans. We are not the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, not part of the government, and not endorsed by any government agency.
This is general information, not legal advice. For advice about your own situation, talk to a VA-accredited representative — many help for free.