The Veteran's service-connected disabilities, including early diabetes mellitus type II (DM-II), diabetic nephropathy associated with DM-II, supraventricular and ventricular ectopy associated with DM-II, mild sensory peripheral neuropathy of both lower extremities, appendectomy scar, and erectile dysfunction associated with DM-II, are deemed to be sufficient for a TDIU. However, the VA examinations conducted in 2008 do not address the impact of these disabilities on his ability to obtain and maintain substantially gainful employment.
The deciding factor: The Veteran's service-connected disabilities combine to preclude him from securing or following substantially gainful employment without consideration of any nonservice-connected medical problems.
- Claimed conditions
- early diabetes mellitus type II (DM-II), diabetic nephropathy associated with DM-II, supraventricular and ventricular ectopy associated with DM-II, mild sensory peripheral neuropathy, right lower extremity, associated with DM-II, mild sensory peripheral neuropathy, left lower extremity, associated with DM-II, appendectomy scar, erectile dysfunction associated with DM-II
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- September 15, 2014
- Citation
- 1440937
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 1440937.
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.
- Denied
The Board denied the veteran's claims for earlier effective dates and initial compensable ratings, as well as service connection for various conditions, except for a scar related to a laminectomy which was granted with an effective date of March 22, 2021.
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.