The Board has determined that the Veteran's July 1983 statement constituted a valid notice of disagreement, and thus, the June 1983 rating decision is not final. The case will be remanded for further development including a VA examination to address the etiology of the Veteran's skin disorders.
The deciding factor: The July 1983 statement from the Veteran constituted a valid notice of disagreement regarding his skin disorder claim, and thus, the June 1983 rating decision is not final. The case will be remanded for further development including a VA examination to address the etiology of the Veteran's skin disorders.
- Claimed conditions
- psoriasiform dermatitis with atypical lymphocytes, onychomycosis, tinea pedis
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- December 1, 2010
- Citation
- 1044894
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 1044894.
What this means for you
A partial grant means some issues were granted while others were denied or remanded — common in multi-issue claims. Look at which issues went which way, and how each was argued.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Denied
The Veteran's claim for an initial compensable disability rating for onychomycosis was denied as the condition did not require treatment and covered less than 5% of his body. The Board also remanded issues regarding service connection for left ear hearing loss and entitlement to a compensable disability rating for right ear hearing loss.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran's diagnosed bilateral tinea pedis, which is a condition related to service.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's claims for increased ratings of his service-connected toenail disabilities and service connection for lumbosacral strain, joint pain, and an acquired psychiatric disorder are being remanded due to the need for further development.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to errors in considering all conditions and a need for an addendum opinion regarding the relationship between the Veteran's current right great toe / foot disability and his claimed frostbite injury.
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.