The Board has remanded the case for an addendum opinion regarding whether the Veteran's bilateral renal cell carcinoma of the kidneys was related to his military service on a direct basis and if it is due to exposure to herbicides in Vietnam.
The deciding factor: An addendum opinion is required as the previous examination did not adequately address these issues.
- Claimed conditions
- bilateral renal cell carcinoma of the kidneys
- How they argued it
- Presumptive (no nexus needed)
- Exposure basis
- Burn pits / airborne hazards
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- May 19, 2014
- Citation
- 1422558
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 1422558.
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 ordered additional development due to incomplete records and unclear medical opinions. The Veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral renal cell carcinoma is being remanded.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has ordered a new examination to determine if the Veteran's bilateral renal cell carcinoma of the kidneys is related to his military service, specifically whether it was caused or worsened by herbicide exposure. The case is being remanded for further development and an addendum opinion from a VA examiner.
- Granted
The Board of Veterans' Appeals has granted service connection for PTSD and Mood Disorders, both presumed conditions under the PACT Act.
- 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.
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.