The Board found that the Veteran's perforated diverticulitis and partial colectomy were not caused by VA treatment or failure to diagnose and treat his diverticulosis, thus denying entitlement to VA compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151.
The deciding factor: VA treatment did not result in the Veteran's perforated colon due to a lack of causation between VA care and the disability.
- Claimed conditions
- perforated diverticulitis, residuals of partial colectomy
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- August 27, 2009
- Citation
- 0932166
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 0932166.
What this means for you
A denial is a starting point, not the end of the road. You can see why this claim fell short — and, if you are still inside the one-year window, the appeal lanes that may remain open to you.
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 issues of entitlement to compensation under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for cystitis and perforated diverticulitis, as residuals of prostate cancer treatment, due to a lack of the consent form for salvage radiation treatment in 2007.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board remands the issues of entitlement to compensation under 38 U.S.C. � 1151 for cystitis and perforated diverticulitis, as residuals of prostate cancer treatment, for further development.
- Denied
The Board denied compensation for cystitis and perforated diverticulitis, both resulting from salvage radiation treatment for prostate cancer. The decision found that the proximate cause of these disabilities was not due to VA's negligence or fault.,VA recommended and referred the Veteran for salvage radiation therapy, which resulted in complications including cystitis and perforated diverticulitis.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has found that the development conducted does not comply with prior remand directives and requires additional VA medical opinions to address the Veteran's reports of visible burns from radiation treatment, as well as his pre-existing conditions. The case is therefore being returned for further action.
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.