The case is remanded for additional development, including an adequate medical examination and obtaining of relevant treatment records.
The deciding factor: The March 2006 VA medical opinion was found inadequate by the Court due to its limited scope and lack of rationale. Additional development is required prior to appellate review.
- Claimed conditions
- Bilateral hallux rigidus
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- March 18, 2009
- Citation
- 0910097
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 1,710 · Granted: 15% (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 0910097.
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.
- Denied
The Veteran's claim for impaired fasting glucose was denied as it is not a disability for VA compensation purposes.,PTSD service connection was granted with an effective date of December 29, 2016. An earlier effective date prior to this date was denied.,An initial PTSD rating in excess of 10 percent was denied.,Bilateral pes planus service connection was granted with an effective date of April 29, 2011. An earlier effective date prior to this date was denied.,Service connection for a skin disability was denied.,Allergic rhinitis was granted as related to the Veteran's active service.,The claims for cervical spine and sinus disabilities were reopened.
- Denied
The Veteran's service-connected bilateral foot disorder was evaluated at a 30 percent rating from June 24, 2010, to September 30, 2015. The evidence does not support an increase in the disability rating during this period.
- Denied
The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for his service-connected lumbar myositis, psychoneurosis and conversion hysteria, residuals of shrapnel wounds of the left thigh and pelvis with retained foreign bodies and scars, and residuals of shell fragment wounds of the right thigh and left leg. The veteran was also denied entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claim for an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for his service-connected coronary artery disease, finding that the evidence did not support a higher rating based on the severity of his condition.
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.