The Veteran's unauthorized medical expenses incurred from September 11, 2006, through September 20, 2006, at Fawcett Memorial Hospital were reimbursed because the emergency treatment was necessary and a safe transfer to a VA facility was not feasible.
The deciding factor: The Veteran could not have been safely transferred to a VA medical facility for continued emergent care due to lack of available beds and denial of admission by both Bay Pines and Tampa VAMCs, despite attempts to arrange the transfer.
- Claimed conditions
- intracranial bleeding, stroke
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- November 4, 2010
- Citation
- 1041501
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 1041501.
What this means for you
A grant means the Board agreed the veteran was entitled to the benefit. Decisions like this show the kind of evidence and arguments that tend to succeed for claims like it.
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 asthma, COPD, pancreatitis, stroke, and left arm weakness (claimed as secondary to stroke) based on the presumption of exposure to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune. The evidence did not support a finding that these conditions were related to service or due to in-service exposure.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has found that the Veteran meets the basic medical eligibility criteria for PCAFC benefits due to his need for personal care services based on symptoms or residuals of neurological or other impairment or injury. However, further clinical evaluation is needed to determine if participation in the program is in the Veteran's best interest.
- Denied
The Board denied service connection for coronary artery disease, hypertension, and stroke as there was no evidence of herbicide agent exposure during service and the medical opinions were against a nexus to service.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the case due to a need for a medical opinion regarding whether the Veteran's stroke and its residuals are related to his service in Southwest Asia, given the PACT Act provisions.
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.