The veteran's appeal is being remanded to the RO for a comprehensive VA examination and additional development of his claims file. The case will be readjudicated based on the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 1114 and 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.350 and 3.352.
The deciding factor: The veteran's claim for increased SMC is being remanded due to the need for a comprehensive VA examination and additional development of his claims file, as per the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 1114 and 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.350 and 3.352.
- Claimed conditions
- loss of use of both lower extremities due to familial spastic paraparesis, neurogenic bowel and a neurogenic bladder with benign prostatic hypertrophy, gun shot wounds of the right upper arm (Muscle Group V) with a contusion of the ulnar and medial nerve, and a gunshot wound of the left high with residuals of femoral and sciatic nerve injury of the left lower extremity, subdeltoid bursitis of both the right and left shoulders, internal hemorrhoid
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- April 17, 2006
- Citation
- 0610846
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 1,599 · Granted: 37% (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 0610846.
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 Veteran's service-connected disabilities do not preclude him from securing and retaining substantially gainful employment.
- Denied
The veteran's claim for special monthly pension based on the need for regular aid and attendance or housebound status was denied as he does not meet the criteria for either benefit.
- Denied
The veteran's claim for unreimbursed medical expenses prior to November 1, 1999 was denied as these expenses were not considered in the annualization period. The veteran's claim for special monthly pension based on need for aid and attendance or housebound status was also denied.
- 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.
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.