The Board has decided to remand the case for further development, including obtaining an independent medical expert opinion and obtaining records from Dr. Schwartz.
The deciding factor: The decision is being remanded due to the need for additional development of the record, particularly in terms of addressing whether the Veteran sustained any additional disability following the laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed on June 1, 1993, and if so, whether this was caused by or made worse by the procedure.
- Claimed conditions
- incisional hernias, perforated duodenal ulcer
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- February 25, 2019
- Citation
- 19113404
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 1,934 · Granted: 41% (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 19113404.
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 compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for additional disability from abdominal surgeries due to lack of fault on the part of VA, finding that the Veteran's complications were not caused by carelessness, negligence, or other instances of fault.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board partially granted the Veteran's claim for an increased rating, but the Court vacated this decision and remanded the issue. The RO should readjudicate the claim on appeal and issue a SSOC before returning it to the Board.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient medical evidence and missing hospital records. They need to determine if type II diabetes caused or contributed to death, and whether the Veteran's death was caused by active service, a service-connected disability, or type II diabetes.
- Granted
The Veteran's treatment at John C. Lincoln Hospital from November 29, 2012 to December 18, 2012 and January 10, 2013 to January 17, 2013 is granted.,The Veteran's treatment at Valley of the Sun Rehabilitation Hospital from December 18, 2012 to January 4, 2013 is remanded due to uncertainty regarding VA facility availability.
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.