The Veteran's claims for an initial rating for a bilateral hearing loss disability and service connection for hypertension, heart condition, skin condition, ear cellulitis (resolved), and otitis externa are being remanded due to the need for additional development of her VA medical records and clarification of her periods of active duty.,The Veteran's claim for service connection for hypertension is being remanded as there is a lack of an adequate examination report. The examiner did not consider the Veteran’s assertion that her hypertension was caused by stress during active duty, nor did they provide an opinion on whether her hypertension aggravated preexisting conditions during periods of active duty.,The Veteran's claim for service connection for heart condition is being remanded as there is a lack of an adequate examination report. The examiner did not diagnose the Veteran with a heart condition and provided a negative nexus opinion based solely on the absence of a current diagnosis, without considering her symptoms or other evidence in the record.,The Veteran's claim for service connection for skin condition is being remanded as there are multiple inadequate examination reports. The September 2013 examiner did not diagnose any skin condition and indicated that no pathology was found during physical examinations, while the December 2015 and December 2017 examiners diagnosed intradermal nevi but failed to provide etiology opinions.,The Veteran's claim for service connection for ear cellulitis (resolved) is being remanded as there are multiple inadequate examination reports. The September 2013 examiner did not diagnose any ear condition and indicated that the external ear, ear canal, and tympanic membrane were normal, while the December 2015 and December 2017 examiners diagnosed a history of external ear canal cellulitis but failed to provide etiology opinions.,The Veteran's claim for service connection for otitis externa is being remanded as there are multiple inadequate examination reports. The September 2013 examiner did not diagnose any ear condition and indicated that the external ear, ear canal, and tympanic membrane were normal, while the December 2015 and December 2017 examiners diagnosed a history of external ear canal cellulitis but failed to provide etiology opinions.
The deciding factor: The claims are being remanded due to the need for additional development of VA medical records and clarification of periods of active duty.,The claim is being remanded as there is a lack of an adequate examination report considering the Veteran’s assertion that her hypertension was caused by stress during active duty, and without providing an opinion on whether her hypertension aggravated preexisting conditions during periods of active duty.,The claim is being remanded as there is a lack of an adequate examination report considering the Veteran's symptoms and other evidence in the record, and failing to provide etiology opinions for any diagnosed heart condition.,The claim is being remanded due to multiple inadequate examination reports not providing etiology opinions for any diagnosed skin condition.,The claim is being remanded as there are multiple inadequate examination reports indicating that no ear conditions were diagnosed or provided etiology opinions.,The claim is being remanded as there are multiple inadequate examination reports indicating that no ear conditions were diagnosed or provided etiology opinions.
- Claimed conditions
- bilateral hearing loss, hypertension, heart condition, skin condition, ear cellulitis (resolved), otitis externa
- How they argued it
- Not specified
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- January 14, 2020
- Citation
- 20002585
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 1,680 · Granted: 24% (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 20002585.
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.
- Dismissed
The Veteran's appeal for service connection of bilateral hearing loss and a ruptured right ear drum was dismissed due to the death of the Veteran.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the claims for service connection for hypertension and peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral upper and lower extremities due to insufficient medical opinions regarding their etiology.
- Denied
The Board found that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss was noted upon entry into active duty service and did not increase in severity during service. Therefore, it denied his claim for service connection.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a heart condition, including ischemic heart disease. The evidence did not support a finding of a current disability related to service.
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.