The Board has determined that the July 2012 decision dismissing the Veteran's claims for service connection for anemia and restless leg syndrome was erroneous due to failure to consider relevant case law, and thus the appeal is granted.
The deciding factor: The Board found that the RO had waived any timeliness concerns with respect to a substantive appeal in Percy v. Shinseki, which allowed the Board jurisdiction over the claims.
- Claimed conditions
- anemia, restless leg syndrome
- How they argued it
- Secondary to another service-connected condition
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- September 9, 2014
- Citation
- 1440304
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 1440304.
What this means for you
A grant means the Board allowed the benefit or issue identified in this decision. Review the original order: other issues in the same appeal may have a different outcome, and this decision does not predict another claim.
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 Veteran's eligibility for PCAFC benefits is remanded due to the AOJ's failure to address whether it is in the best interest of the Veteran to participate in the program. The Board finds that the Veteran has been in need of personal care services for at least six continuous months based on an inability to perform the ADL of bathing.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for a right knee disability, restless leg syndrome, and respiratory disability due to lack of evidence showing in-service incurrence or aggravation of these conditions.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's claims for earlier effective dates and increased ratings are being remanded due to the need for further review of the evidence. The Board is unable to determine if there was a factual increase in disability prior to the effective dates requested, or if service connection should be granted based on the current evidence.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Veteran's service-connected disabilities did not prevent him from maintaining employment in the construction industry, and he was able to work with accommodations such as sedentary work and frequent breaks. The Board denied his claim for a TDIU.
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.