The Veteran's death is not service-connected, but the appellant seeks burial benefits based on a service-connected cause of death. The Board finds an inadequate medical opinion and requires a new one to determine if in-service conditions contributed substantially or materially to the Veteran's death.
The deciding factor: The provided medical opinion did not address whether the in-service conditions contributed substantially or materially to the Veteran’s death, which is required by law.
- Claimed conditions
- cold exposure, prominent right pulmonary artery and right hilar enlargement
- How they argued it
- Not specified
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- November 14, 2019
- Citation
- 19185659
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 1,071 · 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 19185659.
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 Veteran's surviving spouse is seeking accrued benefits for conditions he had previously filed claims for, but the RO must adjudicate these claims before a determination as to accrued benefits may be offered.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Board denied the veteran's claim for recognition as a former POW, finding that his internment in Switzerland did not meet the criteria for POW status due to lack of detention by an enemy government and insufficient evidence of hardships comparable to those experienced by POWs held by enemy governments.
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.