The Board has remanded the case due to a failure to obtain private treatment records from Dr. Johnson in Selmer, Tennessee.
The deciding factor: The Court found that the duty to assist was not satisfied as the Veteran reported seeking treatment for his left leg disability but no records were obtained.
- Claimed conditions
- left leg disability, neuropathy, numbness
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- April 28, 2020
- Citation
- 20029954
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. Read the original VA decision (opens in a new tab) using citation 20029954.
What this means for you
A remand sends an issue back for more development, often a new examination or missing records. It does not award the benefit or decide the final outcome. The original decision explains the additional work ordered.
What you can do next
Use your own notice and decision stage. A remanded issue is not a final court-appealable denial. VA review guidance and CAVC filing instructions (U.S. federal; reviewed October 7, 2026).
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has expanded the scope of the claim to include any mental health disorder raised by the record and has remanded for additional development regarding service connection for left leg, ankle, and psychiatric disabilities.
- Whole decision: Granted
The Veteran's disability of numbness, tingling, and pain in the left lower extremity is granted as service connected.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's claim for SMC based on loss of use of both lower extremities is being remanded due to a failure to obtain relevant private medical records. The AOJ will consider these records when readjudicating the claim.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has found that the eligibility determination for the PCAFC was inadequate due to an insufficient medical opinion, and thus remanded for further review.
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.