The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining VA and private treatment records and scheduling a VA examination. The Veteran's claim will be reconsidered after these actions.
The deciding factor: The decision is being remanded due to incomplete or missing evidence that needs to be obtained before further action can be taken on the claim.
- Claimed conditions
- chronic motion sickness
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- August 27, 2014
- Citation
- 1438276
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. Read the original VA decision (opens in a new tab) using citation 1438276.
What this means for you
A remand sends an issue back for more development, often a new examination or missing records. It does not award the benefit or decide the final outcome. The original decision explains the additional work ordered.
What you can do next
Use your own notice and decision stage. A remanded issue is not a final court-appealable denial. VA review guidance and CAVC filing instructions (U.S. federal; reviewed October 7, 2026).
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for a back disability and chronic motion sickness due to inadequate development, including failing to consider the Veteran's credible testimony regarding continuous symptoms since separation from service. The claims are being returned for further development.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the case due to inadequate examination and opinion regarding the Veteran's claimed vertigo and chronic motion sickness.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case for further development due to a previous decision being vacated and remanded by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). Specifically, the BPPV rating is still in dispute as the Veteran's wife used the term 'staggering' which may be related to dizziness. The TDIU issue was also remanded but will be deferred until further evidence can make the Veteran eligible for schedular consideration.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Veteran's claims for service connection for glioblastoma brain tumor and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) as secondary to his service-connected chronic motion sickness have been denied. His claim for a compensable disability rating for bilateral hearing loss has also been denied.
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.