The veteran's unauthorized private hospitalization in March 1995 was denied as it did not involve a service-connected disability or an aggravating nonservice-connected condition.
The deciding factor: The VA examiner found that the pseudoseizure episode in March 1995 was unrelated to the veteran's service-connected vestibular dysfunction and thus, did not meet one of the requirements for reimbursement under 38 C.F.R. § 17.120.
- Claimed conditions
- vestibular dysfunction
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- 30%
- Decision date
- May 3, 2000
- Citation
- 0011713
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 0011713.
What this means for you
A denial is a starting point, not the end of the road. You can see why this claim fell short — and, if you are still inside the one-year window, the appeal lanes that may remain open to you.
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 claim of service connection for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo, finding that his condition is not causally related to active service.
- Partly granted
The Veteran was granted a 70 percent initial disability rating for PTSD effective December 2, 2021, but the claim for an increased rating in excess of 70 percent was denied. The appeal also included claims for service connection and ratings for various conditions, some of which were granted while others were remanded.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's claim for a compensable rating for his service-connected left ear hearing loss with vestibular dysfunction is being remanded due to pre-decisional duty-to-assist errors, including the need to associate VA treatment records and obtain private treatment records. A new examination is also required.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the case due to a failure to obtain complete service treatment records and because of the PACT Act, which provides for an additional theory of entitlement for service connection due to toxic exposure. The appellant's claim will be reconsidered with the provision of a VA examination and medical opinion regarding his participation in a TERA.
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.