The veteran's unauthorized private medical services provided from November 3, 1997 to November 18, 1997 were denied as he was not in receipt of any service-connected disability at the time.
The deciding factor: The veteran did not meet the criteria for payment or reimbursement under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1728 because his treatment was not for a service-connected disability.
- Claimed conditions
- Acute inferior wall myocardial infarction, Coronary artery bypass grafting
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- August 31, 2000
- Citation
- 0023268
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 0023268.
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 claims for higher ratings for status post coronary artery bypass grafting and bilateral hearing loss, finding that the evidence did not support a rating in excess of the current assigned disability ratings under both pre-amendment and post-amendment VA rating criteria.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case for clarification of a VA examiner's opinion regarding the Veteran's respiratory disability. The matter is now back with the AOJ to obtain additional medical records and clarify the service connection claim.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's current 30% rating for coronary artery disease (CAD) is insufficient, and a new VA examination is needed to assess the severity of his condition.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran is seeking reimbursement for unauthorized medical expenses incurred at Good Samaritan Hospital. The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient evidence regarding whether the Veteran's condition had stabilized and if he could have been transferred to a VA facility.
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.