The Board has remanded the case for further development, including a VA examination to determine the nature and severity of the veteran's service-connected chondromalacia patella, right and left. The RO should readjudicate the claim with consideration of DeLuca criteria and Office of the General Counsel opinions.
The deciding factor: The Board has determined that further development is needed due to incomplete medical records and a need for clarification on the nature and severity of the veteran's service-connected knee conditions.
- Claimed conditions
- chondromalacia patella, right, chondromalacia patella, left
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- May 17, 2004
- Citation
- 0418398
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 673 · Granted: 27% (granted or partly granted, in the vetted decisions on this site)
Judge attribution: 2025 complete; earlier years partial.
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 0418398.
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 her service-connected right and left knee disabilities, as well as her claim for reimbursement of unauthorized medical services. The case is remanded to obtain additional evidence and provide proper notification under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000.
- Denied
The veteran's claim for reimbursement of unauthorized private medical expenses incurred at Desert Hospital on December 13, 1997 was denied because the treatment was not deemed emergent and no VA or other Federal facilities were feasibly available.
- 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.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claim for an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for his service-connected coronary artery disease, finding that the evidence did not support a higher rating based on the severity of his condition.
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.