The Board denied the claim of service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death due to lack of new and material evidence, as the additional evidence provided was cumulative or duplicative.
The deciding factor: The newly submitted evidence did not provide any information that could reasonably substantiate the claim for service connection for the cause of the Veteran’s death.
- Claimed conditions
- cause of death (bi-occipital hemorrhage), head and neck cancer, pulmonary nodule, end-stage renal disease
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- January 16, 2019
- Citation
- 19104058
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 1,810 · Granted: 23% (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 19104058.
What this means for you
A denial is a starting point, not the end of the road. You can see why this claim fell short — and, if you are still inside the one-year window, the appeal lanes that may remain open to you.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Denied
The Veteran's death was due to carcinoma esophagus, with head and neck cancer noted as significant conditions. The Board found that the evidence does not support a connection between in-service herbicide agent exposure and the Veteran's cause of death.
- Dismissed
The Veteran requested to withdraw the appeal concerning a proposal to sever service connection for pulmonary nodule. The Board dismissed the appeal as per the Veteran's request.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's eligibility for VA's PCAFC benefits is being remanded due to insufficient medical opinion supporting the denial of benefits. The Board finds that the Veteran requires personal care services and supervision, meeting the basic medical eligibility criteria under PCAFC.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the case due to duty-to-assist errors and the need for a new opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran's lung conditions.
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.