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

The Veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral tinnitus is granted. The Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the Veteran has current bilateral tinnitus and that it is related to his in-service noise exposure.,The Veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral hip radiculopathy is denied. The Board finds that there is no current diagnosis of bilateral hip radiculopathy, and therefore cannot grant service connection.,The Veteran's claim for service connection for a right foot disability is remanded. Further investigation into the Veteran's in-service injury and any relevant medical records are needed to determine if his current symptoms are related to service.,The Veteran's claim for service connection for a lower left leg disability is remanded. The Board finds that further examination and testing, including nerve conduction studies, are necessary to determine if there is a relationship between the Veteran's service-connected degenerative arthritis of the spine and any diagnosed lower left leg disorder.

The deciding factor: The preponderance of evidence supports a finding that the Veteran has current bilateral tinnitus and it is related to his in-service noise exposure.,There is no current diagnosis of bilateral hip radiculopathy, and therefore cannot grant service connection.,Further investigation into the Veteran's in-service injury and any relevant medical records are needed to determine if his current symptoms are related to service.,Further examination and testing, including nerve conduction studies, are necessary to determine if there is a relationship between the Veteran's service-connected degenerative arthritis of the spine and any diagnosed lower left leg disorder.

Claimed conditions
bilateral tinnitus, bilateral hip radiculopathy, right foot disability, lower left leg disability
How they argued it
Direct service connection
Exposure basis
None
Rating assigned
None in this decision
Decision date
September 5, 2019
Citation
19168699

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 19168699.

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.