The Board has remanded the case due to duty-to-assist errors and a need for a medical opinion regarding the cause of death.
The deciding factor: There is insufficient evidence to determine if the Veteran's cardiopulmonary arrest was related to his active duty service, including his heart palpitations during active duty.
- Claimed conditions
- cardiopulmonary arrest, heart palpitations, paroxysmal atrial tachycardia, heart rhythm disorder
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- October 8, 2019
- Citation
- A19001845
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 1,680 · Granted: 24% (granted or partly granted, in the vetted decisions on this site)
Judge attribution: 2025 complete; earlier years partial.
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 A19001845.
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.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to a duty to obtain a medical opinion regarding whether the Veteran's death was linked to his service, including exposure to Agent Orange.
- Partly granted
The Board dismissed the appeals for heart palpitations, left shoulder disability, and right shoulder disability. The appeal for a right knee disability is remanded.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for the cause of his death, finding that there was no evidence linking any of the immediate or contributing causes of his death to his period of active duty service. The Board also found that the PACT Act did not apply in this case as the Veteran served prior to the period when herbicide agents were presumed used.
- Dismissed
The Veteran withdrew his appeal before the Board could make a decision on the claims. The Board dismissed the appeal as a result.
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.