The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining a medical opinion from a cardiologist regarding whether VA hospital care and treatment caused or contributed to the Veteran's death. The issues of entitlement to DIC under both 38 C.F.R. § 3.312 and 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 are also being remanded.
The deciding factor: The Board found that substantial compliance with previous remands was not achieved, necessitating further review by a cardiologist to address the issues of DIC under both provisions.
- Claimed conditions
- bilateral occipital lobe infarcts
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- January 5, 2010
- Citation
- 1000592
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 1000592.
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 Board denied the claims of entitlement to DIC due to the deceased Veteran's blindness secondary to bilateral occipital lobe infarcts and entitlement to DIC under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151, based on VA treatment in November 1997.
- Denied
The Board denied the appellant's claim for DIC due to blindness caused by bilateral occipital lobe infarcts, finding that there was no evidence showing a direct causal link between the veteran's blindness and his death. The Board also found that VA treatment in November 1997 did not cause or contribute to the veteran's death.
- 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.