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

The Veteran's claim for an initial compensable disability rating for tinea pedis of the bilateral feet is remanded due to a lack of recent VA examination.,The Veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded as there is no current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes. A new VA audiological examination is needed.,The Veteran's claim for service connection for Stargardt’s disease (claimed as residuals of a bilateral eye injury) is remanded due to the need for clarification on whether the condition preexisted service and if it was subjected to superimposed disease or injury during service. A VA examination is also needed.,The Veteran's claim for service connection for a sleep disorder is remanded as there is no current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes. A new VA audiological examination is needed.,The Veteran's claim for service connection for a rib cartilage disability is remanded due to the need to locate service treatment records from sick bay and obtain an opinion regarding whether the condition had its onset in service.

The deciding factor: There is insufficient evidence of current bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes, necessitating further examination.,The Veteran's claim for Stargardt’s disease requires clarification on whether it preexisted service or was subjected to superimposed disease or injury during service.,The Veteran's rib cartilage disability needs to be evaluated in the context of his service history and any potential superimposed injuries.

Claimed conditions
tinea pedis (bilateral feet), bilateral hearing loss, Stargardt's disease (claimed as residuals of a bilateral eye injury), sleep disorder, rib cartilage disability
How they argued it
Not specified
Exposure basis
None
Rating assigned
None in this decision
Decision date
May 23, 2019
Citation
19139138

Veterans Law Judge

B. MULLINS

Decisions by this judge: 1,874 · Granted: 33% (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 19139138.

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.