The veteran seeks compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for residuals from surgery performed at a VA medical facility in November 2000, which included neurological deficiencies in the lower extremities, erectile dysfunction, and ongoing bowel incontinence and difficulty with evacuation. The Board will remand to obtain an expert medical opinion by an experienced surgeon regarding whether the proximate cause of these disabilities was due to carelessness or negligence on the part of VA.
The deciding factor: The Court found that the October 2002 medical opinion was insufficient, as it expressed its conclusions in ambiguous terms and could not support the Board's finding that the veteran's complications were not the result of negligence. The case is remanded to obtain an expert medical opinion by a surgeon, preferably one with expertise in vascular surgery.
- Claimed conditions
- neurological deficiencies in the lower extremities, erectile dysfunction, ongoing bowel incontinence and difficulty with evacuation
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- September 18, 2008
- Citation
- 0831953
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 0831953.
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.
- Dismissed
The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for diabetes mellitus type II with erectile dysfunction was denied as the evidence did not show that he had been diagnosed and manifested to at least a 10 percent disability rating on or prior to May 8, 2001.
- Denied
The Board denied service connection for diabetes mellitus, prostate cancer, visual impairment, hypertension, and erectile dysfunction due to lack of exposure to herbicide agents during service. The Veteran's claims were not granted.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has found that the Veteran meets the basic medical eligibility criteria for PCAFC benefits due to his need for personal care services based on symptoms or residuals of neurological or other impairment or injury. However, further clinical evaluation is needed to determine if participation in the program is in the Veteran's best interest.
- Granted
The Board has granted service connection for prostate cancer, coronary artery disease (CAD), diabetes mellitus type II (DM II), hypertension, and erectile dysfunction as secondary to service-connected DM II. The Veteran's exposure to Agent Orange during active service is presumed.
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.