The Board is remanding the case to obtain new evidence and possibly a VA examination, as well as to ensure that all development actions have been conducted in full. The veteran's claim for service connection for HNP L5-S1, left L5 radiculopathy will be reconsidered based on this additional information.
The deciding factor: The case is being remanded due to the need for new evidence and possible VA examination as well as ensuring all development actions have been conducted in full.
- Claimed conditions
- herniated nucleus pulposus L5-S1, left L5 radiculopathy
- How they argued it
- Reopened with new and material evidence
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- June 2, 2006
- Citation
- 0616050
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 0616050.
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.
- Granted
The Veteran's low back disability rating was restored from 20% to 40%, and he received increased ratings for his right lower extremity myelopathy and left lower extremity radiculopathy.
- Granted
The veteran's initial rating for spondylolisthesis, L5-S1, with degenerative changes at L4 and left L5 radiculopathy was granted at 20 percent prior to August 14, 2002. The RO increased the rating to 40 percent effective on August 14, 2002.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board remands the claim for service connection for sarcoidosis as new and relevant evidence has been received since the previous denial.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board remands the claim for service connection for tinnitus to correct a duty to assist error, as the Veteran's lay statements regarding onset and continuity of symptoms were not adequately considered in the previous decision.
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.