Veterans’ RightsAn independent resource for veterans
← All decisions
Remanded (sent back)PACT Act

The Veteran's tinnitus is denied as there is no probative nexus linking his current complaints to military noise exposure.,Service connection for a bladder disability due to Agent Orange exposure is not granted as there is no evidence of such disability during service or within one year after separation.,Sleep apnea, claimed as secondary to service-connected lung cancer, is remanded for further evaluation and opinion regarding its etiology.,Heart disease (hypertension) is remanded for further evaluation and opinion regarding its etiology with respect to the Veteran's service-connected lung cancer.,Service connection for hypertension is remanded for further evaluation and opinion regarding its etiology with respect to Agent Orange exposure.,Diverticulitis, gallbladder calculus, kidney calculus, and skin disability are remanded for further evaluation and opinion regarding their etiology with respect to Agent Orange exposure.,Gallbladder calculus is remanded for further evaluation and opinion regarding its etiology with respect to Agent Orange exposure.,Kidney calculus is remanded for further evaluation and opinion regarding its etiology with respect to Agent Orange exposure.,Skin disability is remanded for further evaluation and opinion regarding its etiology with respect to Agent Orange exposure.

The deciding factor: The claims are being remanded as there is insufficient evidence to establish service connection for the conditions in question, particularly due to a lack of probative nexus between the Veteran's current diagnoses and his military service or exposure to herbicides.

Claimed conditions
tinnitus, bladder disability, sleep apnea, heart disease (hypertension), hypertension, diverticulitis, gallbladder calculus, kidney calculus, skin disability
How they argued it
Presumptive (no nexus needed)
Exposure basis
Agent Orange / herbicides
Rating assigned
None in this decision
Decision date
May 9, 2019
Citation
19135949

Veterans Law Judge

H.M. WALKER

Decisions by this judge: 2,569 · Granted: 26% (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 19135949.

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.

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.