The Board has ordered additional development due to the need for clarification on whether complications from the veteran's breast-reduction surgery in June 1998 were reasonably foreseeable. The case is being remanded for further examination and review of evidence.
The deciding factor: Additional development is required as the Board must address whether informed consent was obtained for the potential risks associated with the breast-reduction surgery, including neuralgia.
- Claimed conditions
- neuralgia of the breast
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- June 27, 2007
- Citation
- 0719401
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 0719401.
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 neuralgia of the breast was caused by her June 1998 VA breast reduction surgery, which was a direct result of carelessness or negligence on the part of VA. The additional disability was not foreseeable.
- Denied
The Board denied the veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 as a result of surgery in June 1998, finding that the additional disability was a foreseeable risk of the surgery for which the veteran provided informed consent.
- 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.