The Board has remanded the cases for further development and an opinion regarding whether the Veteran's congestive heart failure had its onset in service based on the abnormal clinical evaluation of the heart finding 'rare extra systoles' on a medical examination dated July 1957.
The deciding factor: The VA examiner failed to address whether the Veteran’s 'rare extra systoles' in service are related to or show the onset of the Veteran's congestive heart failure.
- Claimed conditions
- Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), Congestive heart failure
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- May 4, 2020
- Citation
- 20031085
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 20031085.
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 the claim of service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death, finding that there was no evidence linking his myocardial infarction and COPD to his military service.
- Denied
The Board has denied service connection for bladder cancer, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as there is no evidence to support a link between these conditions and the Veteran's military service.
- Granted
The Veteran's claim for service connection for heart condition was granted with an effective date of August 1, 2019. The decision is based on evidence showing exposure to diesel and gas fuel during service.
- Denied
The Veteran's claim for a higher level of SMC was denied as the Board found that he is already in receipt of SMC at the (l) rate based on need for regular aid and attendance due to service-connected disabilities, including coronary artery disease with congestive heart failure. A second award of SMC at the (l) rate based on need for regular aid and attendance was not warranted.
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.