The Board has remanded the claim for a new VA examination to address informed consent and disclosure of risks, as well as whether additional disabilities are related to the surgery. The issue will be readjudicated after this is completed.
The deciding factor: The Board found that the previous instructions were not substantially complied with regarding informed consent and risk disclosure, necessitating a remand for an addendum opinion.
- Claimed conditions
- bunionectomies
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- January 9, 2020
- Citation
- 20001307
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 3,038 · Granted: 30% (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 20001307.
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.
- Denied
The Board denied service connection for bilateral pes planus with bilateral first metatarsophalangeal joint degenerative joint disease and bunionectomies, finding that the Veteran's preexisting condition did not worsen during service.
- Denied
The RO denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for the residuals of bilateral bunionectomies, concluding that any current foot conditions were not related to his service-connected plantar wart.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's claim to reopen his service connection for residuals of bilateral bunionectomies is being remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining VA medical records and opinions from treating physicians.
- 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.
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.