The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding whether the Veteran's liver hemangiomas are related to in-service chemical exposure and/or as secondary to his service-connected carcinoma of the right testicle. The examiner is requested to provide an addendum opinion addressing these issues.
The deciding factor: The examiner needs to determine if there was a superimposed injury or disease during service that resulted in additional disability, considering the Veteran's lay statements about stomach and liver complaints for many years.
- Claimed conditions
- hemangiomas of the liver
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- December 10, 2019
- Citation
- 19192527
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 2,977 · Granted: 27% (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 19192527.
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.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient medical opinions regarding the Veteran's liver hemangiomas and his in-service exposure. The claims file will be sent back for further development, including obtaining updated VA treatment records and an addendum opinion from a VA examiner.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's claim for service connection for liver hemangiomas is being remanded due to insufficient evidence and the need for further development, including a VA examination.
- Denied
The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for his service-connected lumbar myositis, psychoneurosis and conversion hysteria, residuals of shrapnel wounds of the left thigh and pelvis with retained foreign bodies and scars, and residuals of shell fragment wounds of the right thigh and left leg. The veteran was also denied entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claim for an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for his service-connected coronary artery disease, finding that the evidence did not support a higher rating based on the severity of his condition.
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.