The Board has remanded the case for further development, including obtaining records of any exposure to ionizing radiation during service and determining whether the veteran's fatal cancers might have been caused by such exposure. The RO will also review the claims folders with a VA physician to determine if his death was related to service or service-connected disabilities.
The deciding factor: The Board found that further development is needed due to new evidence added to the case file and because of the appellant's contention regarding radiation exposure during service.
- Claimed conditions
- metastatic carcinoma to the liver, mestastatic small cell carcinoma of the lung, chronic ulcer disease requiring surgery of stomach
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- February 5, 2007
- Citation
- 0703394
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 0703394.
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 claims of service connection for the cause of the veteran's death and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) benefits pursuant to 38 U.S.C.A. § 1318 due to a lack of legal merit, as the veteran's cancer was attributable to his use of tobacco products during service.
- Denied
The Board found that there was no competent medical evidence linking the cause of the veteran's death to VA treatment, thus denying the claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151.
- 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.