The Veteran is seeking compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for various disabilities, including chronic pancreatitis, abscesses, anemia, and renal failure, which he claims were caused by negligent or faulty medical care provided by VA at the Topeka VA Medical Center in September 2007. The case is being remanded to obtain additional treatment records from February 2007 through October 2007.
The deciding factor: The Veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 hinges on whether the claimed disabilities were proximately caused by negligent or faulty medical care provided by VA, and additional evidence is needed to determine this.
- Claimed conditions
- chronic pancreatitis, abscesses, anemia, renal failure
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- March 26, 2012
- Citation
- 1210985
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 1210985.
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 Veteran's eligibility for PCAFC benefits is remanded due to the AOJ's failure to address whether it is in the best interest of the Veteran to participate in the program. The Board finds that the Veteran has been in need of personal care services for at least six continuous months based on an inability to perform the ADL of bathing.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's claims for earlier effective dates and increased ratings are being remanded due to the need for further review of the evidence. The Board is unable to determine if there was a factual increase in disability prior to the effective dates requested, or if service connection should be granted based on the current evidence.
- Denied
The Veteran's service-connected disabilities did not prevent him from maintaining employment in the construction industry, and he was able to work with accommodations such as sedentary work and frequent breaks. The Board denied his claim for a TDIU.
- Dismissed
The Veteran's appeals for service connection for various conditions have been dismissed as untimely.,Service connection for PTSD has not been established.
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.