The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining opinions regarding VA's duty of care and whether there was negligence in recommending a CABG procedure due to the Veteran's previous head injury.
The deciding factor: The decision is being remanded because the VA examiner's opinion did not address whether VA met its duty of care with regard to the events surrounding the Veteran's June 2008 CABG, specifically regarding the knowledge of his previous head injury and the amount of information provided to the Creighton UMC.
- Claimed conditions
- Loss of vision
- How they argued it
- Not specified
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- January 28, 2015
- Citation
- 1504114
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 1504114.
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 dismissed the appeal of entitlement to a compensable disability rating for hearing loss of the right ear. The claim for service connection for an eye disorder of the left eye is remanded due to the Veteran's withdrawal request.
- Dismissed
The Veteran's appeals for service connection for loss of vision, bilateral hearing loss, and hypertension have been dismissed. The Board has remanded the claims for service connection for a back disability, an acquired psychiatric disability (PTSD), diabetes mellitus, type II, and a gastrointestinal disability.
- Dismissed
The Veteran's appeal for aid and attendance for his spouse has been dismissed as he requested its withdrawal during a Board hearing. The issues of service connection for brain tumor and loss of vision will be addressed in separate decisions.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral eye disability, finding that there was no evidence to support a link between his current vision problems and his military service.
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.