The Veteran is seeking an earlier effective date for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability. The case has been remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining a VA medical opinion regarding whether his service-connected disabilities rendered him unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation from February 1, 1999, to February 2000.
The deciding factor: The Board needs to obtain a medical opinion on whether the Veteran's service-connected disabilities prevented him from securing and following a substantially gainful occupation during the specified period.
- Claimed conditions
- residuals of T-12 fracture with low back pain, residuals of a right shoulder injury, appendectomy scar, postoperative vocal cord polyp, residuals of fracture of right little finger
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- March 21, 2013
- Citation
- 1309653
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 1309653.
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 insufficient evidence regarding whether the Veteran's appendectomy scar was aggravated by Agent Orange exposure or asbestos exposure during service. The appellant must be provided with a VA opinion to address these theories of aggravation.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's service-connected disabilities do not result in the need of personal care services, and his PCAFC request was denied. The Board finds that the AOJ did not provide proper notice and reasoning for the denial, and thus remands the case to obtain a new determination based on updated regulations.
- Denied
The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date and a compensable rating for her appendectomy scar was denied. The Board found that the evidence did not support an earlier effective date prior to March 15, 2022, and also determined that a noncompensable rating was appropriate.
- Partly granted
The Veteran's service connection for tinnitus was granted, while the claim for bilateral hearing loss was denied. Several other claims were remanded.
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.