The Board has remanded the case due to failure to substantially comply with its September 2017 remand directives, specifically regarding a VA examination that did not address whether the Veteran's complaints of shortness of breath were related to her pulmonary embolism or another cause.
The deciding factor: The Board failed to ensure substantial satisfaction of its September 2017 remand directives for a medical opinion addressing the relationship between the Veteran's complaints of shortness of breath and her service-connected pulmonary embolism.
- Claimed conditions
- pulmonary embolism
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- October 7, 2020
- Citation
- 20065110
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 1,812 · Granted: 30% (granted or partly granted, in the indexed 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. Read the original VA decision (opens in a new tab) using citation 20065110.
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: Granted
The Board has granted service connection for pulmonary embolism as secondary to the Veteran's service-connected status post spigelian herniorrhaphy, finding that the surgery increased her risk of developing a pulmonary embolism.
- Whole decision: Granted
The Veteran's pulmonary disability is directly related to his active service, and the Board has granted service connection for this condition.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the claims for service connection due to a duty-to-assist error regarding the Veteran's exposure to asbestos and Agent Orange during service. The claims are now pending for further development.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Veteran's pulmonary embolism and its residuals were not caused by VA carelessness, negligence, or similar fault. The Board found no additional disability due to VA fault.
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.