The veteran's appeal is being remanded for a new VA examination to assess the severity of his service-connected genitourinary disabilities, including whether he requires absorbent materials and their frequency of use.
The deciding factor: The Board found that a new VA examination is necessary due to uncertainty regarding the veteran's need for absorbent materials and their frequency of use.
- Claimed conditions
- residuals of trauma genitourinary tract, recurrent epididymitis, removal of left testicle, urinary retention
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- July 15, 2004
- Citation
- 0418905
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 1,582 · Granted: 32% (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 0418905.
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.
- Dismissed
The Veteran withdrew his appeal for service connection of Diabetes Mellitus, Type II and urinary retention (also claimed as bladder condition). The Board dismissed the appeal due to the withdrawal.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's thalamic injury and resulting disabilities are the result of a non-VA procedure performed at MUSC. The Board finds that VA may have proximately caused this treatment by referring the Veteran to MUSC for care, but the evidence is incomplete regarding whether VA specifically referred him or if additional records need to be obtained.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has determined that the Veteran's failure to report for VA examinations due to hospitalization during October 2019 constitutes a pre-decisional duty to assist error, and thus the claims are being remanded.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board remanded the veteran's claim for compensation due to incomplete records and the need for a more detailed medical opinion.
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.