The Board has remanded the case due to inconclusive opinions regarding the diagnosis, primary cite, and origins of a malignant tumor surgically resected from the Veteran's left posterior neck in mid-July 2002. The case must be returned for further development including obtaining a sample of the malignant tumor and reviewing VA or private treatment records.
The deciding factor: The Board found that remand was required due to inconclusive opinions regarding the diagnosis, primary cite, and origins of a surgically resected malignant tumor from mid-July 2002. The case must be returned for further development including obtaining a sample of the malignant tumor and reviewing VA or private treatment records.
- Claimed conditions
- post-operative residuals of carcinoma of the neck with metastatic neoplasm
- How they argued it
- Presumptive (no nexus needed)
- Exposure basis
- Gulf War
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- December 16, 2011
- Citation
- 1146058
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 1146058.
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
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Remanded (sent back)
The veteran seeks service connection for a cancer that was surgically removed from his neck. The Board finds the diagnosis and primary site of the tumor unclear, but given presumed exposure to Agent Orange during service in Vietnam, the case is remanded for further examination and opinion.
- Dismissed
The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for diabetes mellitus type II with erectile dysfunction was denied as the evidence did not show that he had been diagnosed and manifested to at least a 10 percent disability rating on or prior to May 8, 2001.
- Granted
Service connection for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is granted. The appeal as to the issue of entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction is dismissed.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the claims for additional development due to conflicting opinions regarding service connection for peripheral neuropathy, hypertension, and skin disabilities related to herbicide exposure.
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.