The Veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of medical expenses incurred at OU Medical Center is being remanded due to the need for additional evidence regarding VA's nonfeasibility in providing emergency services.
The deciding factor: VA was not feasibly available and refused treatment due to lack of beds, necessitating transfer to OU Medical Center.
- Claimed conditions
- Pelvic fracture
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- September 22, 2009
- Citation
- 0935873
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 0935873.
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 Veteran's claim for special monthly pension based on the need for aid and attendance or housebound status is being remanded due to the need for additional evidence and clarification of his current medical condition.
- Denied
The veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of medical expenses incurred at OU Medical Center from June 27, 2003 to June 30, 2003 is denied as he did not satisfy all the criteria under the Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act. However, if the services were rendered in a medical emergency of such nature that delay would have been hazardous to life or health, and no VA facility was feasibly available, reimbursement may be made pursuant to 38 U.S.C.A. § 1728.
- 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.