The Board has remanded the case for further development and readjudication, including consideration of new evidence submitted by the Veteran.
The deciding factor: The Veteran submitted additional medical evidence after receiving a VA opinion, which necessitates referral to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) for review and preparation of a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC).
- Claimed conditions
- macular degeneration, lumbosacral strain with degenerative disc disease at L4-L5, radiculopathy of the right lower extremity, raticulopathy of the left lower extremity, right ankle strain and sprain, left ankle strain and sprain
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- May 25, 2017
- Citation
- 1718317
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 1718317.
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.
- Denied
The Board has denied the claim for service connection for macular degeneration due to a finding of clear and unmistakable error in the AOJ's decision, as no new and relevant evidence was presented or secured with the supplemental claim.
- Dismissed
The Board has dismissed all service connection claims and rating determinations due to the Veteran's withdrawal of his appeal.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the claims for service connection for low back disability and radiculopathy of the bilateral lower extremities due to a failure to provide adequate reasons or bases in the November 2024 decision as to whether the pre-decisional duty to assist had been satisfied.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has determined that the AOJ's decision denying eligibility for the Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC) is not supported by adequate reasoning and must be remanded to allow for a thorough review, including obtaining medical opinions on whether it is in the best interest of the Veteran to participate in the PCAFC program.
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.