The Board has ordered further development due to pending issues and requests for additional evidence. The case is now remanded back to the RO for specific actions.
The deciding factor: The decision was not explicitly made on service connection, but rather requested further development of the claim.
- Claimed conditions
- laceration of the forehead
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- September 29, 2003
- Citation
- 0325527
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 0325527.
What this means for you
A remand sends an issue back for more development, often a new examination or missing records. It does not award the benefit or decide the final outcome. The original decision explains the additional work ordered.
What you can do next
Use your own notice and decision stage. A remanded issue is not a final court-appealable denial. VA review guidance and CAVC filing instructions (U.S. federal; reviewed October 7, 2026).
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Whole decision: Dismissed
The appeal as to the issues of entitlement to service connection for a laceration of the forehead and bilateral knee disability is dismissed.,Service connection is not granted for these conditions.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Veteran's service-connected disabilities prior to March 31, 2013 did not meet the schedular criteria for a TDIU rating. The Board found that his employment issues were due to non-service connected conditions and therefore denied the claim.
- Whole decision: Granted
The Veteran's injuries, including fractures of the wrist and forearm, fingers, knees, forehead, and brain impairment, were caused by participating in a VA vocational rehabilitation program. The Board found that commuting home from classes as part of this program was an essential activity.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Veteran's multiple injuries, including bilateral wrist and forearm fractures, fractures of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th fingers, laceration of the knees, and laceration of the forehead, were not caused by an essential activity or function of his VA training program. The Board found that the accident occurred while he was riding a bicycle home from class, which is not part of the authorized activities.
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.