The Board has remanded the DIC claim due to insufficient evidence regarding whether VA's care or treatment caused the Veteran's death. The appellant argues that VA was negligent in prescribing Loratadine, which she contends had complications when combined with his heart condition.
The deciding factor: The examiner must address whether VA's care or treatment proximately caused the Veteran’s coronary atherosclerosis or death.
- Claimed conditions
- Coronary atherosclerosis, Death
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- Gulf War
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- May 28, 2019
- Citation
- 19140654
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 961 · Granted: 20% (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 19140654.
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 remanded the case due to issues with informed consent documentation and a need for additional development regarding the etiology of the Veteran's death.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the Veteran's claimed exposure to toxic environmental agents and the applicability of the PACT Act. The VA must now attempt to obtain relevant records from Brooke Army Medical Center.
- Granted
The Board granted service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death effective July 30, 2015, which is the date the appellant filed her claim. The effective date was set based on VA regulations regarding claims received within one year of a veteran's death.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has determined that the VA Centralized Eligibility and Appeals Team (CEAT) decision denying eligibility for PCAFC benefits was inadequate, as it did not address whether the Veteran requires personal care services each time he completes one or more activities of daily living (ADLs). The case is being remanded to conduct an updated medical review.
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.