The veteran's claim for an increased rating for his service-connected low back disability is being remanded due to the inadequacy of a previous VA examination and the need for additional medical records.
The deciding factor: The case must be remanded because the prior VA examination was inadequate for rating purposes, requiring further evaluation and consideration of all factors identified in 38 C.F.R. �� 4.40, 4.45.
- Claimed conditions
- degenerative disc disease, L4-5
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- December 18, 2000
- Citation
- 0032873
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 0032873.
What this means for you
A remand is not a loss. The Board sent the case back for more development — often a new exam or missing records — before making a final decision. Many remands later end in a grant, and the decision spells out exactly what the Board wanted to see.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for a videoconference hearing and further development.
- Denied
The Veteran's claim for service connection for degenerative disc disease, L4-5, L5-S1 was denied. The claim for service connection for idiopathic thrombocarpin purpura with systemic lupus erythermatosus (claimed as thrombocarpin) was also denied due to lack of evidence linking the condition to service or herbicide exposure.
- Granted
The Board has granted an increased evaluation for the veteran's service-connected degenerative disc disease, L4-5, with right radiculopathy and a total disability rating for compensation purposes based on individual unemployability.
- Remanded (sent back)
The veteran is seeking service connection for a low back condition that he claims was caused by anesthetic used during his pilonidal cyst surgery in service. He also seeks TDIU based on his current disability. The case is being remanded to obtain additional medical evidence and comply with the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000.
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.