The Board of Veterans' Appeals has ordered the case to be remanded for additional development due to a need to obtain private medical records from Drs. Brosac and Ambroziak, which could contain information establishing an earlier effective date for the appellant's increased rating claim.
The deciding factor: The VA failed to fulfill its obligation to assist the appellant in obtaining potentially pertinent evidence that could establish an earlier effective date for his increased rating claim.
- Claimed conditions
- residuals of a right foot 3rd metatarsal fracture
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- December 4, 2006
- Citation
- 0637704
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 2,435 · Granted: 22% (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 0637704.
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 appellant's request for an earlier effective date of September 28, 2000 for a 10% disability rating for residuals of a right foot 3rd metatarsal fracture.
- Denied
The veteran's claim for an increased disability rating for his service-connected residuals of a right foot 3rd metatarsal fracture was denied, as the evidence did not show that he had been disabled to a degree warranting a 10 percent rating within one year prior to September 28, 2000.
- 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.