The Board has determined that the claims folder does not reflect that the veteran was advised of changes brought about by the recently enacted Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000. The case is remanded for compliance with the VCAA and additional development.
The deciding factor: The VCAA requires notification and assistance to claimants, which has not been adequately addressed in this case.
- Claimed conditions
- mitral valve damage
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- April 8, 2003
- Citation
- 0306718
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 0306718.
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.
- Denied
The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for his service-connected lumbar myositis, psychoneurosis and conversion hysteria, residuals of shrapnel wounds of the left thigh and pelvis with retained foreign bodies and scars, and residuals of shell fragment wounds of the right thigh and left leg. The veteran was also denied entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board remands the issue of entitlement to service connection for a back disability due to a duty to assist error, specifically regarding VA's failure to provide the Veteran with a VA examination prior to the rating decision.
- Granted
The Board granted a 50 percent rating for the Veteran's migraine headaches based on prostrating attacks occurring more than once a month and severe economic inadaptability.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's appeal for special monthly compensation based on loss of use of his left foot, as there was no evidence showing that the service-connected conditions resulted in functional limitation equal to that of amputation of the left foot with prosthesis.
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.