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

The appeal for SMC for the loss of use of a creative organ is dismissed.,Issues of service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are remanded due to new evidence submitted by the Veteran.,Service connection for tinnitus is remanded as it may be related to his hearing loss, which has not been addressed yet.,Service connection for a heart condition, presumed secondary to herbicide agent exposure (gulf war), is remanded. Additional VA treatment records are needed.,Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded due to the possibility of current psychiatric disability.,The rating for neurodermatitis is remanded as there may be changes in medication use.

The deciding factor: The Veteran withdrew his appeal for SMC for loss of use of a creative organ at the hearing, thus no further action is needed on this issue.,New evidence submitted by the Veteran suggests that his tinnitus and hearing loss are related. Therefore, these issues need to be addressed again.,Service connection for tinnitus may be granted if it is found to be related to his hearing loss.,The heart condition may be secondary to herbicide agent exposure (gulf war). Additional VA treatment records are needed to determine this.,There is a possibility of current psychiatric disability, thus service connection needs to be re-evaluated.,Changes in medication use for the neurodermatitis could affect its severity rating.

Claimed conditions
bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, heart condition (including as secondary to herbicide agent exposure), acquired psychiatric disorder
How they argued it
Not specified
Exposure basis
None
Rating assigned
None in this decision
Decision date
June 5, 2019
Citation
19143348

Veterans Law Judge

A. ISHIZAWAR

Decisions by this judge: 1,797 · 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 19143348.

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.