The Veteran is seeking compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. � 1151 for residuals of left partial maxillectomy, left orbital floor reconstruction, medial canthal ligament repair surgery, and hospitalization following such surgery provided by VA. The claim is currently remanded to obtain a signed informed consent form regarding the February 1, 2006 surgical procedure.
The deciding factor: The Board needs to ensure that all relevant information for the Veteran's claim has been obtained before proceeding with adjudication.
- Claimed conditions
- left partial maxillectomy, left orbital floor reconstruction, medial canthal ligament repair, residuals of left partial maxillectomy, residuals of left orbital floor reconstruction, residuals of medial canthal ligament repair
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- July 13, 2017
- Citation
- 1727282
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 1727282.
What this means for you
A remand sends an issue back for more development, often a new examination or missing records. It does not award the benefit or decide the final outcome. The original decision explains the additional work ordered.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Denied
The Veteran's residuals from the left partial maxillectomy, orbital floor reconstruction, and subsequent radiation therapy are not considered to be due to VA carelessness, negligence, or lack of proper skill. The Board found that these complications were reasonably foreseeable.
- Denied
The Veteran's residuals from the left partial maxillectomy and subsequent radiation therapy are not service-connected as they were a result of carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, error in judgment or similar instance of fault on the part of VA.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case for obtaining a signed informed consent regarding the February 1, 2006 surgical procedure and ensuring that any determination as to its unavailability is documented in the claims file.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claim for benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151, finding that the residuals of his VA treatment were not caused by negligence or fault on the part of VA.
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.