The Veteran's urinary incontinence is being remanded for further review due to the lack of signed consent forms and an examination to determine if it was caused by VA carelessness, negligence, or other fault.
The deciding factor: The Board found that there were insufficient records regarding the Veteran's informed consent for his October 2012 radical prostatectomy, which is necessary to establish whether the urinary incontinence is due to VA carelessness or negligence.
- Claimed conditions
- Urinary disability
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- October 23, 2019
- Citation
- 19180471
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 2,480 · Granted: 26% (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 19180471.
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: Dismissed
Your claim for service connection for a urinary disability has been dismissed because it is the result of an improper concurrent election under VA regulations.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the case due to inadequate medical opinions and potential TERA exposure, requiring further examination and analysis.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a urinary disability, finding no probative evidence showing that his condition began during service or was related to an in-service event, injury, or disease. The Board also found insufficient evidence of secondary service connection due to PTSD.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the issues of service connection for CFS, urinary disability, and joint aches (excluding service-connected degenerative arthritis of the left and right knees) due to need for clarification regarding diagnoses and etiology.
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.