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

The Veteran's tinnitus is found to have had its onset during service and has persisted since then, granting service connection.,Service connection for the left knee disorder, right knee disorder, and lumbar spine disorder secondary to bilateral knee disorders is remanded due to insufficient medical evidence.,Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded as there are no current audiometric findings that meet VA criteria for a disability. The Veteran's representative indicated possible worsening of his condition since the last examination in 2011.,Service connection for peritoneal adhesions is remanded due to insufficient medical evidence, including lack of records from the private debridement surgery performed in 2002.,Service connection for a psychiatric disorder is remanded as there are no current diagnoses or sufficient medical evidence linking service to the Veteran's claimed conditions.

The deciding factor: The Veteran has provided credible testimony and competent lay observations regarding his tinnitus, which began during service. The VA examiner’s opinion was based on inaccurate factual premises.,There is insufficient medical evidence to establish a nexus between the current knee disorders and service due to an absence of records from in-service treatment and post-service care.,The Veteran's hearing loss may have worsened since the last examination, necessitating further evaluation by VA audiologists.,Lack of private medical records regarding the 2002 debridement surgery prevents a determination on the claim for peritoneal adhesions.,There are no current diagnoses or sufficient medical evidence linking service to the Veteran's psychiatric conditions.

Claimed conditions
tinnitus, left knee disorder, right knee disorder, lumbar spine disorder, bilateral hearing loss, peritoneal adhesions, psychiatric disorder
How they argued it
Direct service connection
Exposure basis
None
Rating assigned
None in this decision
Decision date
February 7, 2019
Citation
19110008

Veterans Law Judge

K. MILLIKAN

Decisions by this judge: 961 · Granted: 20% (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 19110008.

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.