The Veteran's unauthorized medical expenses incurred at non-VA facilities on December 13, 2010; December 22, 2010; and January 4, 2011 were not covered because no VA facility was feasibly available and an attempt to use them beforehand would have been reasonable.
The deciding factor: The Veteran's unauthorized medical expenses incurred at non-VA facilities on the specified dates were not covered due to lack of a feasible VA alternative and reasonableness in attempting to use VA facilities.
- Claimed conditions
- Multiple Sclerosis, Scotoma of the left eye with optic neuritis and atrophy, Bladder dysfunction, Cognitive disorder secondary to multiple sclerosis, Weakness of both legs and both arms, Loss of senses of smell and taste, Bowel dysfunction
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- March 25, 2014
- Citation
- 1412505
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 1412505.
What this means for you
A denial is a starting point, not the end of the road. You can see why this claim fell short — and, if you are still inside the one-year window, the appeal lanes that may remain open to you.
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 decided to remand the case for additional development, including obtaining records of the Appellant's reserve component service and conducting a VA examination to determine if her multiple sclerosis is related to service.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has determined that new and relevant evidence has been received to warrant readjudication of the previously denied claims for service connection for Multiple Sclerosis, Hypertension, and Headaches. The case is being remanded to allow for further consideration.
- Denied
The Veteran's right foot AFO brace did not cause wear and tear to her clothing, specifically pants, during the 2022 calendar year. Therefore, she is denied a clothing allowance for that year.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to a duty-to-assist error, specifically regarding private treatment records from June 2015 to October 2017. The Veteran is asked to provide authorization for these records.
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.