The appeal is remanded to the RO for further development and readjudication of the claim.
The deciding factor: The case was remanded due to insufficient notice provided to the appellant regarding what evidence was needed to reopen her claim, as required by Kent v. Nicholson and Hupp v. Nicholson.
- Claimed conditions
- cause of the veteran's death
- How they argued it
- Not specified
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- January 23, 2009
- Citation
- 0902489
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 case is remanded for additional development and readjudication of the claims.
- Remanded (sent back)
The appeal is remanded for additional development and readjudication of the claim for service connection for the cause of the veteran's death under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1310, as well as adjudication of a separate claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151.
- Remanded (sent back)
The appeal is remanded to the RO for further development and consideration of the claim, including the opportunity to submit additional evidence.
- Denied
The Board found that the appellant did not file a timely Notice of Disagreement (NOD) regarding the August 2002 rating decision denying service connection for the cause of the veteran's death and entitlement to accrued benefits.
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.