The Veteran's hematoma following a cardiac catheterization surgery in September 2009 is not considered to be due to VA carelessness, negligence, or fault. The hematoma was deemed an expected risk of the procedure and proper steps were taken by VA to diagnose and treat it.
The deciding factor: VA medical professionals did not exercise any fault during the Veteran's cardiac catheterization surgery, and there is no evidence that he was internally bleeding at the time of his discharge or thereafter.
- Claimed conditions
- hematoma
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- January 11, 2018
- Citation
- 1802717
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 1802717.
What this means for you
A final Board denial may be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, generally within 120 days of the Board mailing date. A Supplemental Claim with new and relevant evidence is a separate option. Another Higher-Level Review of the Board decision is not available. Check your own notice: this historical decision does not set your deadline.
What you can do next
Use your own notice and decision stage. A remanded issue is not a final court-appealable denial. VA review guidance and CAVC filing instructions (U.S. federal; reviewed October 7, 2026).
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Whole decision: Dismissed
The Veteran's appeal for service connection on multiple conditions has been dismissed due to the death of the Veteran.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Veteran's appeal for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for residuals of a total left knee replacement was denied because the evidence did not support finding that the additional disabilities were caused by VA carelessness, negligence, or error in judgment.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to the need for additional medical opinions regarding whether the Veteran's seroma disability was a foreseeable consequence of the March 2013 panniculectomy surgery and aftercare, and if so, whether VA's standard of care was appropriate. The AOJ must also obtain all relevant treatment records.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's bowel duct problems and scar are being remanded for further evaluation due to inadequate medical opinion regarding the relationship between her conditions and VA treatment. The issue of service connection is also being remanded.
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.