The Veteran's TDIU claim is denied prior to August 3, 2016 and remanded for further evaluation of his TDIU claim from August 3, 2016 to August 16, 2018.
The deciding factor: The evidence does not demonstrate that the Veteran's service-connected disabilities alone resulted in unemployability prior to August 3, 2016. The Veteran voluntarily resigned from his employment and his income exceeded the poverty threshold for one person prior to his resignation.
- Claimed conditions
- prostate cancer, status post radical prostatectomy with scar (now claimed as residuals of prostatectomy with incontinence), sleep apnea with asthma, acromioclavicular joint osteoarthritis (previously rated as residuals, left rotator cuff repair (dominant)), degenerative disc and joint disease, cervical spine, right lower extremity sciatic, L4, L5, and S1 spinal nerve impingement associated with degenerative disc and joint disease, lumbar spine, left knee laxity, left knee limitation of motion, tinnitus, residuals, right elbow repair (non-dominant), degenerative disc and joint disease, lumbar spine, bilateral hearing loss, residuals, right ankle repair, gout, left foot, degenerative joint disease, right knee, hypertension, erectile dysfunction associated with prostate cancer, status post radical prostatectomy with scar (now claimed as residuals of prostatectomy with incontinence), scar, left shoulder associated with acromioclavicular joint osteoarthritis (previously rated as residuals, left rotator cuff (dominant))
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- April 29, 2019
- Citation
- 19133082
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 631 · Granted: 21% (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 19133082.
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.
- Dismissed
The Veteran's appeal for service connection of bilateral hearing loss and a ruptured right ear drum was dismissed due to the death of the Veteran.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the claims for service connection for hypertension and peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral upper and lower extremities due to insufficient medical opinions regarding their etiology.
- Denied
The Board found that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss was noted upon entry into active duty service and did not increase in severity during service. Therefore, it denied his claim for service connection.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the claims for service connection for hearing loss, tinnitus, and an acquired psychiatric disorder due to incomplete medical records and need for further examination.
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.