The veteran's skin disorder of the right foot was granted service connection, while cluster headaches, a disorder of the spine, and hematuria were denied.
The deciding factor: The skin condition of the right foot is related to service in a hot, moist environment. The other conditions are not shown to be causally or etiologically related to service.
- Claimed conditions
- cluster headaches, disorder of the spine, hematuria, including benign prostatic hypertrophy, tinea pedis of the right foot
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- January 12, 2009
- Citation
- 0901230
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 3,038 · Granted: 30% (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 0901230.
What this means for you
A partial grant means some issues were granted while others were denied or remanded — common in multi-issue claims. Look at which issues went which way, and how each was argued.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient medical opinions regarding the etiology of the Veteran's obstructive sleep apnea and whether it is secondary to his service-connected cluster headaches or meningitis.
- Denied
The Veteran's claim for service connection for cluster headaches was denied because the new evidence did not relate to the issue of whether his current condition is related to military service.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the claims for service connection for residuals of mononucleosis, chronic fatigue syndrome, and cluster headaches due to incomplete VA medical opinions. The Veteran is requested to provide addendum opinions regarding the nature and etiology of his claimed conditions.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the case due to a failure by VA to obtain relevant private treatment records, including from Dr. K and Dr. N, which may be pertinent to the Veteran's eligibility for PCAFC benefits.
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.