The Board found that the veteran's complications following his cholecystectomy, including a hematoma and wound infection, were due to anticoagulation therapy provided by VA. The Board concluded that these complications did not result from technical error but were secondary to the veteran's prophylactic anticoagulation therapy for atrial fibrillation.
The deciding factor: The complications arose as a direct result of the cholecystectomy and subsequent anticoagulation therapy, which was necessary due to the veteran's pre-existing conditions (prosthetic mitral valve replacement and atrial fibrillation).
- Claimed conditions
- hematoma, wound infection, ventral incisional hernia
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- January 6, 2000
- Citation
- 0000337
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 0000337.
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.
- Dismissed
The Veteran's appeal for service connection on multiple conditions has been dismissed due to the death of the Veteran.
- Denied
The Veteran's appeal for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for residuals of a total left knee replacement was denied because the evidence did not support finding that the additional disabilities were caused by VA carelessness, negligence, or error in judgment.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's claims for service connection and effective date have been remanded due to the complexity of the medical issues involved.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to the need for additional medical opinions regarding whether the Veteran's seroma disability was a foreseeable consequence of the March 2013 panniculectomy surgery and aftercare, and if so, whether VA's standard of care was appropriate. The AOJ must also obtain all relevant treatment records.
Free starter guide for your own claim
Reading this because you were denied or under-rated? Get the plain-English next steps — your appeal options, the deadline that protects you, and how appeals like yours turn out. One email, no spam.
We will only use this to send the guide. No spam, unsubscribe any time. We never sell your information.
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.