The Veteran's claim for service connection for urinary tract problems is being remanded due to the need for further development, including a VA examination and obtaining private medical records.
The deciding factor: Further development is required as the Veteran has provided competent reports of continuity of symptomatology and has been treated for a urinary tract problem. A medical opinion is needed to determine the etiology of any present urinary tract disability.
- Claimed conditions
- urinary tract problems
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- February 7, 2011
- Citation
- 1104989
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 1104989.
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: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate opinions in previous VA examination reports and needs a new examination to determine if the Veteran's kidney disorder is related to service, or if it is caused by his service-connected conditions.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case for further development due to inadequate medical opinion regarding whether the Veteran's additional disabilities were caused by an event not reasonably foreseeable as a result of undergoing an esophagectomy.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case for further development, including obtaining a medical opinion regarding whether the Veteran's additional disabilities were caused by an event not reasonably foreseeable as a result of undergoing an esophagectomy in January 2011.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the case due to inadequate medical opinions regarding whether the Veteran's additional disabilities are related to an event that was reasonably foreseeable.
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.