The Board's decision on the claims to reopen for bilateral arm and wrist disabilities was vacated due to a denial of due process. The other issues remain pending.
The deciding factor: The Board's decision did not allow the Veteran's representative an opportunity to review the entire case file before rendering its decision, which violated due process rights.
- Claimed conditions
- bilateral arm disability, bilateral wrist disability
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- August 27, 2012
- Citation
- 1229438
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 1229438.
What this means for you
A partial grant means some issues were granted while others were denied or remanded — common in multi-issue claims. Look at which issues went which way, and how each was argued.
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 claims for bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, back disability, neck disability, bilateral foot disability, bilateral shin disability, bilateral shoulder disability, and bilateral wrist disability due to a failure to provide proper notice of the right to a hearing before the RO.
- Denied
The Board has denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a bilateral wrist disability, finding that her current diagnosis of De Quervain tenosynovitis is not related to an in-service injury or disease and is not caused by or aggravated by her service-connected psychiatric disability.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has determined that additional efforts are needed to obtain the Veteran's service treatment records and VA treatment records, which may provide relevant information for the claims of service connection. The case is therefore being remanded for these purposes.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has determined that the decision on appeal was not legally adequate and requires remand for further action, including obtaining a medical opinion from the CEAT regarding personal care services needs and supervision requirements. The AOJ must also provide compliant notice under 38 U.S.C. § 5104.
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.