The Veteran is seeking compensation for an esophageal disability due to treatment at a VA facility. The Board has decided that a remand is necessary to determine the existence and etiology of any additional esophageal disability, as well as whether there was fault on the part of VA in providing care.
The deciding factor: The Veteran's claim requires further examination to determine if an additional esophageal disability exists and its relationship to the 1972 surgery.
- Claimed conditions
- esophageal disability
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- August 14, 2009
- Citation
- 0930552
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 0930552.
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 Board remands the claim for service connection of an esophageal disability, to include GERD with hiatal hernia, due to a pre-decisional duty to assist error.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has denied the Veteran's claims of service connection for bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, left knee disability, left foot disability, and right ankle disability. The claim for esophageal disability is remanded.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has found that the Veteran's thoracic artery calcification claim is denied due to a prohibition against service connection for disabilities resulting from tobacco use during service. The esophageal disability, kidney disability, and lumbar spine disability claims are remanded as there were duty-to-assist errors in obtaining VA examinations and medical opinions.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has determined that there was a duty to assist error and remands the case for an addendum opinion regarding the Veteran's claimed esophageal disability.
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.