The Board has decided to remand the case due to an inadequate examination, and the Veteran needs a new VA examination to determine if his carotid artery disease is related to service.
The deciding factor: The March 2013 examination was inadequate as it did not review the claims file or provide a diagnosis of etiology for the Veteran's carotid artery disease.
- Claimed conditions
- stenosis of carotid arteries, bilateral carotid endarterectomies
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- December 19, 2018
- Citation
- 18159471
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 18159471.
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 denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for stenosis of carotid arteries, finding no evidence of such condition during or within one year after service and noting that it is not a presumptive disease associated with Agent Orange exposure.
- Denied
The Board has determined that the appellant's cardiovascular and peripheral arterial diseases are not related to his service, including exposure to ionizing radiation.,Service connection for ischemic heart disease, atherosclerosis, cardiovascular disease, status post cardiac arrest, bypass surgery, left femoral artery cut down, angioplasty with cryoplasty femoral arteries, left femoral thromboendarterectomy, bilateral carotid endarterectomies, cardiac catherization/angioplasty, coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) L1 and peripheral artery disease has been denied.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the claims for additional development, including referral to the Under Secretary for Benefits for an opinion on whether any current cardiovascular disability is related to the Veteran's documented in-service exposure to ionizing radiation. The claims will be readjudicated after this review.
- Denied
The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for his service-connected lumbar myositis, psychoneurosis and conversion hysteria, residuals of shrapnel wounds of the left thigh and pelvis with retained foreign bodies and scars, and residuals of shell fragment wounds of the right thigh and left leg. The veteran was also denied entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities.
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.