The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the relationship between the Veteran's benign schwannoma tumor and his service in Vietnam, specifically exposure to herbicide agents.
The deciding factor: The examiner is required to provide an opinion on whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s benign schwannoma tumor is causally related to active service, including presumed exposure to herbicide agents.
- Claimed conditions
- benign schwannoma tumor, sciatic notch
- How they argued it
- Presumptive (no nexus needed)
- Exposure basis
- Agent Orange / herbicides
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- June 11, 2019
- Citation
- 19145358
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 1,810 · Granted: 23% (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 19145358.
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 appeals were dismissed due to his death during the appeal process.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the case due to an error in assigning greater probative weight to a VA clinician's opinion and not considering other medical opinions. The Veteran is seeking service connection for a benign schwannoma tumor, which may be related to herbicide exposure during service.
- Granted
The Board of Veterans' Appeals has granted service connection for PTSD and Mood Disorders, both presumed conditions under the PACT Act.
- Dismissed
The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for diabetes mellitus type II with erectile dysfunction was denied as the evidence did not show that he had been diagnosed and manifested to at least a 10 percent disability rating on or prior to May 8, 2001.
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.