The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate VA medical opinions, and a new opinion is needed regarding whether the Veteran's bilateral knee disorder began during service or is otherwise related to his service.
The deciding factor: The prior VA medical opinions relied on speculative reasoning which was found insufficient in the Jones v. Shinseki decision.
- Claimed conditions
- bilateral knee disorder (arthritis)
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- June 12, 2020
- Citation
- 20040347
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 20040347.
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.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for service connection due to incomplete records and need for further examination. The issues include gout, residuals of pneumonia, bladder disorder, kidney disorder, right foot disorder, left foot disorder, bilateral knee disorder (previously claimed as arthritis), bilateral shoulder disorder (previously claimed as arthritis), and bilateral ankle disorder (previously claimed as arthritis).
- Denied
The Board has denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for sleep apnea, lung disorder, headaches, bilateral knee disorder (arthritis), fatigue, dizziness, and muscle aches. The Board found that these conditions are not etiologically related to his active duty service.
- Denied
The Board has dismissed the Veteran's appeals for service connection of ocular pressure, hyperlipidemia, and dental trauma issues due to her withdrawal during the October 2012 hearing. The claims for increased ratings for cervical spine disability, toes of the left and right feet, and osteoporosis are also dismissed as they have been withdrawn.
- Dismissed
The Veteran's appeal was dismissed due to the death of the appellant.
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.