The Board has determined that new and material evidence was received to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for an abdominal hernia. The Veteran's abdominal hernia is found to be at least as likely as not related to his period of active duty, including due to the documented in-service abdominal complaints and May 1991 clinical observation of a bulging area around the Veteran's umbilicus.
The deciding factor: The VA examiner provided an opinion that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's abdominal hernia was etiologically related to his period of active duty, including due to the documented in-service abdominal complaints and May 1991 clinical observation of a bulging area around the Veteran's umbilicus.
- Claimed conditions
- abdominal hernia, appendectomy scar
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- March 24, 2016
- Citation
- 1611846
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 1611846.
What this means for you
A grant means the Board agreed the veteran was entitled to the benefit. Decisions like this show the kind of evidence and arguments that tend to succeed for claims like it.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Denied
The Board denied service connection for various conditions, including right shoulder disability, abdominal hernia, GERD, bilateral ankle disabilities, and bilateral foot disabilities. The evidence did not support a finding that these conditions were incurred or aggravated during the appellant's period of active duty.
- 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.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's initial claim for a higher rating for hypertension has been granted, with a 10% disability rating. The issue of service connection for abdominal hernias is remanded due to the AOJ's failure to obtain an adequate medical opinion.
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.