The Board has decided to remand the case for a new medical opinion regarding whether the Veteran's current disabilities are related to VA care following his April 12, 2001 surgery. The opinion should address if any additional disability is due to negligence or lack of proper skill on the part of VA and if it was reasonably foreseeable.
The deciding factor: The Board found that the previous medical opinions were insufficient and did not address the crux of the Veteran's argument regarding the carelessness, negligence, or lack of proper skill by VA personnel from April 12 to May 18, 2001.
- Claimed conditions
- memory loss, chronic nerve pain, foot drop
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- October 6, 2020
- Citation
- 20064754
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 2,500 · Granted: 29% (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 20064754.
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 claims for service connection for tinnitus, arthritis, and memory loss. The decision found no evidence linking these conditions to his military service.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided that the Veteran does not have a current disability related to residuals of a heat stroke, claimed as memory loss. The claims for service connection for a back disability and an acquired psychiatric disorder are remanded due to a duty to assist error.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has found new and relevant evidence for the claims of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, a heart disorder, and a seizure disorder. The AOJ is required to readjudicate these issues in the first instance.
- Dismissed
The Veteran's appeals for various conditions and ratings have been dismissed due to the Veteran's withdrawal of his appeal prior to a decision being made.
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.