The Board has determined that additional development is needed to determine if the veteran's December 5, 2003 eye treatment was an emergency and whether VA facilities were accessible for his condition.
The deciding factor: There is a conflict in the record regarding whether the veteran's eye condition on December 5, 2003, was a medical emergency and whether VA facilities were feasible available.
- Claimed conditions
- Posterior Vitreous Detachment
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- December 11, 2006
- Citation
- 0638458
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 407 · Granted: 23% (granted or partly granted, in the indexed 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. Search VA.gov for the original decision (opens in a new tab) using citation 0638458.
What this means for you
A remand sends an issue back for more development, often a new examination or missing records. It does not award the benefit or decide the final outcome. The original decision explains the additional work ordered.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Granted
The Veteran's initial disability rating for diabetic retinopathy with epiretinal membrane, posterior vitreous detachment with diplopia has been granted at a 20 percent level since June 29, 2017.
- Denied
The Board found that the Veteran's current left eye disorder, including vision loss, dry eyes, and posterior vitreous detachment, is not causally or etiologically related to his active military service, specifically his in-service facial trauma.
- Denied
The Board found no competent medical evidence linking the veteran's current eye disorder, diagnosed as a posterior vitreous detachment giving visual symptoms and/or 'ocular migraines,' to her active service. The claim was denied.
- Granted
The Board has determined that the veteran's posterior vitreous detachment of the left eye, manifested by floaters, was incurred during military service and is therefore granted service connection.
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.