The Board has remanded the case due to the need for additional evidence and a VA examination.
The deciding factor: The decision is based on the need to obtain and associate any outstanding records, including private treatment records from Dr. Geisler and Dr. Nettesheim, as well as Air Force base hospital records regarding the Veteran's foot injury in 1970.
- Claimed conditions
- residuals of a right toe injury
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- March 19, 2019
- Citation
- 19119494
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 1,836 · Granted: 31% (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 19119494.
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.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has determined that a remand is necessary to obtain additional medical opinions regarding the Veteran's right great toe and left knee disabilities, as well as to request relevant VA outpatient records from 1990 through the present.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate notification of the VCAA and the need for a medical examination or opinion regarding whether the veteran's right toe injury residuals are related to VA care, treatment, or examination.
- Denied
The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for his service-connected lumbar myositis, psychoneurosis and conversion hysteria, residuals of shrapnel wounds of the left thigh and pelvis with retained foreign bodies and scars, and residuals of shell fragment wounds of the right thigh and left leg. The veteran was also denied entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claim for an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for his service-connected coronary artery disease, finding that the evidence did not support a higher rating based on the severity of his condition.
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.