The Board has remanded the case due to concerns about the adequacy of a previous VA examination and the need for additional evidence, including an addendum opinion from the August 2013 examiner.
The deciding factor: The Board found that there were insufficient grounds in the previous examination report to determine whether the Veteran's bilateral foot disorders are related to his military service, particularly given the lack of mention of his period of service from June 2004 to April 2005 and Africa.
- Claimed conditions
- degenerative joint disease of the great toes, pes cavus, hammertoes, atrophied fat pads, neuroma 2nd intermet space of the right foot
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- October 14, 2020
- Citation
- 20066332
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 1,676 · Granted: 24% (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 20066332.
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 determined that the Veteran's initial claims for service connection were not properly considered and remanded to obtain a full copy of her service treatment records. The Veteran was also scheduled for an examination to determine if she had any current bilateral foot disorders, including pes planus, pes cavus, plantar fasciitis, heel spurs, or pain.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand two issues: service connection for common headaches (claimed as migraines) secondary to vitiligo and service connection for pes cavus. The Veteran's claims are being returned due to inadequate medical opinions in the original decision.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the case due to an inadequate VA examination, requiring a new one with a proper evaluation of the Veteran's foot disabilities.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the Veteran's claimed left foot disabilities, specifically pes cavus and metatarsalgia. The Veteran is required to undergo a VA examination to determine the nature of these conditions and their relationship to service.
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.