The Board has decided to remand the case due to incomplete records and the need for a VA opinion regarding the cause of the Veteran's death. The appellant is seeking service connection for the cause of her husband’s death, which was attributed to mediastinal mass and pericardial effusion.
The deciding factor: The Board found that there are gaps in the medical record and needs an expert opinion on the etiology of the Veteran's condition.
- Claimed conditions
- mediastinal mass, pericardial effusion
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- October 17, 2019
- Citation
- 19179190
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 2,050 · Granted: 32% (granted or partly granted, in the indexed 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. Read the original VA decision (opens in a new tab) using citation 19179190.
What this means for you
A remand sends an issue back for more development, often a new examination or missing records. It does not award the benefit or decide the final outcome. The original decision explains the additional work ordered.
What you can do next
Use your own notice and decision stage. A remanded issue is not a final court-appealable denial. VA review guidance and CAVC filing instructions (U.S. federal; reviewed October 7, 2026).
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the claims for service connection for pulmonary heart disease, non-ischemic heart disease, congenital heart defects, pericardial effusion, and pulmonary fibrosis due to new and relevant evidence having been secured.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board remands the claims for service connection for pleural effusion, pericarditis, chronic, lung changes, left, lung scarring, left, and pericardial effusion to obtain additional medical evidence.
- Whole decision: Dismissed
The Veteran's appeal for a compensable disability rating for pericardial effusion due to latent tuberculosis (claimed as pleural effusion) is dismissed.,The Veteran's claim for service connection for lung condition with scarring (claimed as lung condition due to removal of fiberglass and lung (latent TB)) is denied.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case for a new VA medical opinion to address the etiology of the Veteran's heart conditions, specifically his claimed ischemic heart disease (claimed as coronary artery disease, valvular heart disease, aneurysm of ascending aorta, aortic stenosis, pericardial effusion, septal thickening, coronary catheterization, and valve surgery).
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.