The appeal is remanded for additional development before further consideration by the Board.
The deciding factor: Further development is warranted prior to further consideration by the Board due to the veteran's request for a hearing with another Veterans Law Judge.
- Claimed conditions
- proliferative diabetic retinopathy
- How they argued it
- Not specified
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- March 28, 2008
- Citation
- 0810388
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 1,071 · 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 0810388.
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.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board remanded the Veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for an additional disability (left eye vision loss and related conditions) allegedly caused by a July 2020 VA surgical procedure. The remand was necessary to obtain missing informed consent documentation from VA's Vista Imaging system and to obtain a more thorough medical opinion addressing whether the claimed disability resulted from VA fault or an unforeseeable event.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for bilateral eye disability and benign prostatic hypertrophy (claimed as prostate cancer) due to inadequate medical opinions regarding their relationship to service. The claims are being returned for further development.
- Remanded (sent back)
DIC benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1318 are denied, and the case is remanded for further evaluation of service connection for the cause of death.
- Denied
The Board denied service connection for diabetes mellitus type II and proliferative diabetic retinopathy, finding that the Veteran's diabetes preexisted her active service and did not have a nexus to her service-connected costochondritis. The claim for service connection for proliferative diabetic retinopathy was also denied as new evidence had not been submitted.
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.