Veterans’ RightsAn independent resource for veterans
← All decisions
Remanded (sent back)

The Veteran's bilateral pes planus was not shown in service, and the Board denied service connection for this condition.,Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded due to lack of a clear and unmistakable evidence opinion regarding aggravation during service.,Service connection for tinnitus is remanded as it is inextricably intertwined with the hearing loss claim.,The Veteran's erectile dysfunction is remanded because his VA examiner did not address whether it was aggravated by his service-connected disabilities or if it had its clinical onset during service.,Service connection for chronic sinusitis is also remanded due to lack of a clear and unmistakable evidence opinion regarding aggravation during service.

The deciding factor: The Veteran's bilateral pes planus did not develop in service, and there was no medical nexus between the condition and his military service.,There is insufficient information provided by the VA examiner regarding whether the Veteran’s hearing loss was aggravated by service.,The claim for tinnitus is remanded because it is intertwined with the hearing loss claim.,The VA examiner did not address whether the Veteran's erectile dysfunction was caused or aggravated by his service-connected disabilities, specifically myelofibrosis and acute myelogenous leukemia with chronic fatigue, status post splenectomy.,There is insufficient information provided by the VA examiner regarding whether the Veteran’s sinusitis was caused or aggravated by his service-connected disabilities.

Claimed conditions
bilateral pes planus, bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, erectile dysfunction, chronic sinusitis
How they argued it
Direct service connection
Exposure basis
None
Rating assigned
None in this decision
Decision date
January 24, 2019
Citation
19105806

Veterans Law Judge

CAROLINE B. FLEMING

Decisions by this judge: 1,037 · Granted: 21% (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 19105806.

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.

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.