The Board has remanded the case for further development and an addendum opinion regarding the cause of the Veteran's death, specifically whether his service-connected PTSD caused or contributed to his metastatic colon cancer.
The deciding factor: The Board found that a VA medical opinion is needed to address the question of whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s service-connected PTSD caused or contributed substantially or materially to the Veteran’s death (listed as metastatic colon cancer), specifically in light of the Veteran's alleged nervous stomach and its possible relationship to metastatic rectal cancer.
- Claimed conditions
- Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), tinea pedis, metastatic colon cancer
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- April 5, 2019
- Citation
- 19125683
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 2,642 · Granted: 19% (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 19125683.
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 Veteran's cause of death was metastatic colon cancer, but the appellant contends it was caused by exposure to ionizing radiation during his service as an X-ray technician. The case is remanded for further development regarding dose estimation and consideration under VA regulations.
- Granted
The Veteran is granted special monthly compensation (SMC) at the (o) rate and SMC at the (r)(2) rate, effective January 19, 2025. The decision finds that the Veteran's service-connected conditions warrant these awards due to his need for aid and attendance.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has identified a contradiction in the AOJ's determinations regarding the Veteran's need for aid and assistance, which requires clarification. The remanded issues are entitlement to SMC based on the need for regular aid and attendance of another and on the basis of statutory housebound status.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran's diagnosed bilateral tinea pedis, which is a condition related to service.
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.