The Board has remanded the case for further development and consideration of new evidence submitted by the Veteran.
The deciding factor: The Court ordered a remand due to procedural errors in the previous decision, including failure to make proper competency determinations regarding the Veteran's lay testimony.
- Claimed conditions
- bilateral ear disorder, otitis media, cholesteatoma
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- January 3, 2011
- Citation
- 1100129
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. Read the original VA decision (opens in a new tab) using citation 1100129.
What this means for you
A remand sends an issue back for more development, often a new examination or missing records. It does not award the benefit or decide the final outcome. The original decision explains the additional work ordered.
What you can do next
Use your own notice and decision stage. A remanded issue is not a final court-appealable denial. VA review guidance and CAVC filing instructions (U.S. federal; reviewed October 7, 2026).
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Whole decision: Dismissed
The claims seeking compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for left foot and bladder disabilities, as well as service connection for tinnitus, are dismissed due to lack of new and relevant evidence. The claim seeking service connection for bilateral knee disabilities is readjudicated.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has granted service connection for obstructive sleep apnea but has remanded the issue of service connection for cholesteatoma due to a duty-to-assist error.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims of service connection for cholesteatoma and an acquired psychiatric disorder to include PTSD due to a pre-decisional duty to assist error in failing to provide VA examinations. The Veteran is entitled to a VA examination for both claims.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a bilateral ear disorder, finding no current diagnosis of such condition and noting that his complaints do not amount to functional impairment related to a diagnosed bilateral ear disorder.
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.