The Board has remanded the case due to a conflict in the medical opinion regarding causation and proximate cause of the Veteran's atonic neurogenic bladder.
The deciding factor: The examiner was unable to provide an opinion on whether any aspect of the March 2006 VA treatment, including the left heart catheterization procedure, resulted in the Veteran's atonic neurogenic bladder without considering broader causation and foreseeability issues.
- Claimed conditions
- Atonic neurogenic bladder
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- March 6, 2019
- Citation
- 19116527
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 1,455 · Granted: 23% (granted or partly granted, in the indexed 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. Read the original VA decision (opens in a new tab) using citation 19116527.
What this means for you
A remand sends an issue back for more development, often a new examination or missing records. It does not award the benefit or decide the final outcome. The original decision explains the additional work ordered.
What you can do next
Use your own notice and decision stage. A remanded issue is not a final court-appealable denial. VA review guidance and CAVC filing instructions (U.S. federal; reviewed October 7, 2026).
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Veteran's atonic neurogenic bladder was not caused by VA treatment, and the Board found no negligence or error in judgment on VA's part. The disability is considered to be a result of pre-existing conditions.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient medical opinion regarding the cause of the Veteran's atonic neurogenic bladder and whether it was caused by VA treatment. The case will be sent back for a new medical opinion.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Board found that the Veteran's atonic neurogenic bladder was not caused by VA treatment in March 2006, and thus compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 is denied.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Board found that the Veteran's atonic neurogenic bladder was not caused by VA treatment and denied his claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151.
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.