The Board has granted service connection for appendectomy scar and residuals of right inguinal hernioplasty, both rated at 10 percent. The claim for hepatitis was denied as not well-grounded.
The deciding factor: The veteran's in-service hepatitis did not result in current disability, thus his claim is not well grounded.
- Claimed conditions
- hepatitis, appendectomy scar, residuals of right inguinal hernioplasty
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- 10%
- Decision date
- May 31, 2000
- Citation
- 0014346
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. Search VA.gov for the original decision (opens in a new tab) using citation 0014346.
What this means for you
A grant means the Board allowed the benefit or issue identified in this decision. Review the original order: other issues in the same appeal may have a different outcome, and this decision does not predict another claim.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Partly granted
The Board has granted service connection for hepatitis C and secondary service connection for cirrhosis of the liver, both determined to be related to in-service hepatitis.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's claims for service connection are remanded due to the failure to schedule VA examinations related to his claimed disabilities. The Board finds that there was a pre-decisional error in not ensuring proper communication with the Veteran.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding whether the Veteran's appendectomy scar was aggravated by Agent Orange exposure or asbestos exposure during service. The appellant must be provided with a VA opinion to address these theories of aggravation.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's service-connected disabilities do not result in the need of personal care services, and his PCAFC request was denied. The Board finds that the AOJ did not provide proper notice and reasoning for the denial, and thus remands the case to obtain a new determination based on updated regulations.
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.