The Board has remanded the case for further development due to conflicting medical opinions and a need for additional examination.
The deciding factor: There are conflicting medical opinions regarding whether the veteran's cryoglobulinemia is related to service, necessitating further evaluation and clarification.
- Claimed conditions
- cryoglobulinemia with renal insufficiency (nephritis)
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- December 18, 2006
- Citation
- 0639368
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 2,480 · Granted: 26% (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 0639368.
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 found that the veteran's cryoglobulinemia with renal insufficiency (nephritis) was not incurred in or aggravated by service and may not otherwise be presumed to have been incurred therein.
- Denied
The Board found that the veteran's cryoglobulinemia with renal insufficiency was not present during or until many years following active duty, and it did not result from any in-service disease or injury.
- Denied
The medical evidence does not show that the veteran's cryoglobulinemia with renal insufficiency was present during or until many years following active duty, and it is not presumed to have been incurred in service. The condition did not result from any inservice disease or injury.
- 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.