Veterans’ RightsAn independent resource for veterans
← All decisions
Remanded (sent back)PACT Act

The Veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are remanded for further examination to determine their etiology.,The Veteran's sleep apnea is remanded for a VA examination to determine its relationship to his service-connected PTSD.,The Veteran's hypertension and colon polyps are remanded due to the need for additional medical evidence regarding herbicide exposure.,The Veteran's GERD, Barrett’s esophagus, gall bladder removal, left foot disability, right foot disability, eye disability (diabetic retinopathy), and kidney stones are remanded for a VA examination to determine their relationship to his service-connected diabetes mellitus.

The deciding factor: The July 2015 VA examiner's opinion on the etiology of the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus was inadequate due to reliance on normal hearing at separation from service.,The Veteran did not specify when he first experienced his tinnitus, requiring further examination to determine its onset.,The Board found that additional medical evidence is needed regarding the relationship between herbicide exposure and the Veteran's hypertension and colon polyps.,The Veteran has claimed secondary service connection for multiple conditions related to diabetes mellitus. The VA needs to gather more information on this.

Claimed conditions
bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, sleep apnea, hypertension, colon polyps, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), Barrett's esophagus, gall bladder removal, left foot disability, right foot disability, eye disability (diabetic retinopathy), kidney stones
How they argued it
Not specified
Exposure basis
None
Rating assigned
None in this decision
Decision date
October 28, 2020
Citation
20069834

Veterans Law Judge

STEVEN D. REISS

Decisions by this judge: 3,217 · Granted: 46% (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 20069834.

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.

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.