The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to the need for a VA examination and review of pertinent treatment records.
The deciding factor: The Joint Motion noted that there is evidence suggesting a relationship between the Veteran's epididymitis/scrotal pain and his in-service vasectomy, meeting the low threshold requirement under McLendon v. Nicholson (2006).
- Claimed conditions
- epididymitis
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- April 26, 2010
- Citation
- 1015182
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 1015182.
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 service connection for hypertension and a compensable rating for chronic epididymitis, finding no evidence of these conditions during or shortly after the Veteran's active duty service.
- Denied
The Board denied service connection for multiple conditions, including hyperlipidemia, low testosterone, epididymitis, ED, prostatectomy, a mass of the parotid gland, prostate cancer, stress urinary incontinence, and other related conditions.
- Dismissed
The Veteran has withdrawn the appeal for service connection for multiple conditions.
- Partly granted
The Board denied the request to reopen the groin injury claim for lack of new and material evidence, denied service connection for bleeding of the colon on the merits, and remanded three issues (right shoulder condition, epididymitis, and the 38 U.S.C. § 1151 perforation claim) for further development after reopening the perforation claim based on newly received evidence.
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.