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

The Veteran's claim for an increased rating for lumbosacral strain with mechanical low back pain is remanded due to the need for a new VA examination and addendum opinion.,The Veteran's claims for service connection of right knee condition, left knee condition, rhinitis, and respiratory condition (including asthma) are remanded due to the need for a new VA examination and addendum opinion.,The Veteran's claim for TDIU is remanded due to the need for VCAA notice and development regarding her employment status since 2010.,The Board requests an opinion from NARA on whether the Veteran was exposed to asbestos while stationed at Fort McClellan.,A VA examiner will provide opinions on the nature and etiology of each claimed condition, including consideration of any asbestos exposure.

The deciding factor: There is a need for additional medical evidence regarding the severity and etiology of the Veteran's lumbosacral strain with mechanical low back pain.,The Veteran needs to provide information about her right knee condition and left knee condition, as well as any other relevant private treatment providers. The VA will attempt to obtain these records on remand.,The Veteran has raised a claim for TDIU, which requires VCAA notice and development of the record. The Board requests an addendum opinion from NARA regarding asbestos exposure.,A new VA examination is needed to determine the nature and etiology of each claimed condition, including consideration of any asbestos exposure.,The Veteran's respiratory condition (including asthma) may have pre-existed service or be related to in-service events, diseases, or injuries. The examiner will provide an opinion on this matter.

Claimed conditions
lumbosacral strain with mechanical low back pain, right knee condition, left knee condition, rhinitis, respiratory condition (including asthma)
How they argued it
Not specified
Exposure basis
None
Rating assigned
None in this decision
Decision date
November 21, 2019
Citation
19188300

Veterans Law Judge

MICHAEL MARTIN

Decisions by this judge: 2,188 · 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 19188300.

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.