The Veteran's request for a Board videoconference hearing was withdrawn due to non-appearance. The case is remanded because the Veteran requested private treatment records from his urologist, Dr. C.H.
The deciding factor: The Veteran did not appear for the scheduled hearing and provided authorization for VA to obtain private treatment records from Dr. C.H.
- Claimed conditions
- urinary disability
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- October 7, 2020
- Citation
- 20065281
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 2,287 · Granted: 23% (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 20065281.
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: Remanded (sent back)
The Board remands the claims for service connection for pseudofolliculitis barbae, a urinary disability, and a skin disability (excluding PFB), including a claimed rash of the chest and back, to correct an error by the AOJ under the Appeals Modernization Act.
- Whole decision: Partly granted
The Board granted service connection for bilateral pes planus and denied the claims for a urinary disability, an earlier effective date for erectile dysfunction, and compensable ratings for pseudofolliculitis barbae, right ankle scars, and other conditions. The cervical spine and GERD with gastritis claims were remanded.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board remands the claims for service connection for right eye disability, prostate disability, urinary disability, right lower extremity sciatica, and left lower extremity sciatica to correct a duty to assist error.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board remanded the veteran's claims for a higher rating of his lower back disability and for service connection of bowel and urinary disabilities secondary to his lower back disability. The Board needs more medical evidence to decide these issues.
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.