The Board remands the claim for a medical opinion on whether the veteran's bilateral chondromalacia is secondary to his service-connected bilateral pes planus.
The deciding factor: Additional development, including obtaining an opinion and any additional VA treatment records, is necessary to fairly consider the secondary service connection claim.
- Claimed conditions
- bilateral chondromalacia
- How they argued it
- Secondary to another service-connected condition
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- May 13, 2008
- Citation
- 0815659
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 2,162 · Granted: 21% (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 0815659.
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
Use your own notice and decision stage. A remanded issue is not a final court-appealable denial. VA review guidance and CAVC filing instructions (U.S. federal; reviewed October 7, 2026).
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Board denied service connection for bilateral chondromalacia and dismissed the appeal for service connection for asthma due to untimely filing.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Board has denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for right and left knee conditions, finding no evidence of in-service injury or disease that led to current diagnoses.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims of entitlement to higher ratings for left and right knee strain due to a lack of adequate examination findings, particularly regarding range of motion testing.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to new evidence received, specifically relevant service department records that existed but were not of record at the time of previous rating decisions. The issue of whether there was clear and unmistakable error in the June 1992 and August 1995 rating decisions is moot as a result.
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.