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 assigned
- None in this 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. Look up the original decision on VA.gov (opens in a new tab) using citation 1104989.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.