The Veteran's initial and higher ratings for CAD are remanded due to insufficient evidence regarding the severity of his condition from July 6, 2011 to August 20, 2013.,The Veteran's rating for CAD from August 20, 2013 to January 5, 2020 is remanded as the Board did not explain why an interview-based METs test was used instead of a diagnostic exercise test in his VA examination.,The Veteran's claim for service connection for GERD is remanded due to insufficient evidence regarding whether his condition is related to his military service or secondary to his PTSD.,The Veteran's claim for service connection for a skin disability (presumptive due to Agent Orange exposure) is remanded as the VA examiner did not address whether it was caused by his diabetes mellitus.,The Veteran's TDIU prior to January 24, 2014 is raised and remanded.
The deciding factor: Insufficient evidence regarding the severity of the Veteran’s CAD from July 6, 2011 to August 20, 2013.,The Board did not explain why an interview-based METs test was used instead of a diagnostic exercise test in his VA examination for CAD.,The VA examiner's opinion regarding GERD is flawed as it does not address whether the Veteran’s condition is secondary to PTSD.,The VA examiner did not address whether the Veteran’s skin disability is caused by his diabetes mellitus, and thus remanded for further evaluation.,The TDIU claim is raised due to the impact on the initial rating of CAD.
- Claimed conditions
- Coronary artery disease (CAD), Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), Skin disability
- How they argued it
- Not specified
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- May 27, 2020
- Citation
- 20036403
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 20036403.
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 Veteran's claim for SMC based on aid and attendance from June 1, 2011, to May 24, 2017, finding that his need for regular aid and attendance was not established during this period.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's current coronary artery disease with acute, subacute, or old myocardial infarction with coronary stent is being remanded for further evaluation due to the lack of a medical nexus between his service-connected hypertension and his heart condition.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's appeal for service connection for Dupuytren's contracture of the left hand, right hand, and GERD is remanded due to inadequate VA examination opinions and failure to consider toxic exposure risk activities during service.
- Denied
The Veteran's GERD is currently rated at 10 percent disabling, but the Board found that his symptoms do not meet or approximate the criteria for a higher rating.
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.