The Board has decided to remand the case due to deficiencies in the development of evidence and notification provided to the Veteran. The issues of reimbursement for unauthorized medical expenses and prior authorization under section 1703(a) need further investigation.
The deciding factor: The AOJ did not comply with all directives given by the Board, including providing proper VCAA notice and obtaining a copy of the 'emergency physician statement'.
- Claimed conditions
- Not specified in this decision
- How they argued it
- Not specified
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- November 27, 2019
- Citation
- 19189716
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 19189716.
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
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.