The Board has remanded the claims for further development due to inadequate examination reports and failure to address Veteran's reports of bleeding from scars.
The deciding factor: The VA examiner did not adequately assess the Veteran’s reports of frequent bleeding from his scars, which is necessary to determine instability and pain.
- Claimed conditions
- shrapnel in the head, head and back scars, residual of shrapnel wound
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- November 10, 2020
- Citation
- 20072627
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 1,429 · 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 20072627.
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.
- Granted
The Board has determined that the Veteran sustained a shrapnel injury to his head during service and finds that this injury is related to his active duty. As such, the claim for service connection for shrapnel in the head is granted.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's shrapnel wounds to his head and back have increased in severity since the last VA examination, which did not note bleeding or instability. The case is remanded for an updated VA examination.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has directed further development of the veteran's claim for a separate evaluation for retained shrapnel fragments, claimed as shrapnel in the head. The RO must review the evidence and provide appropriate notice under the VCAA before appellate review can occur.
- Denied
The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for his service-connected lumbar myositis, psychoneurosis and conversion hysteria, residuals of shrapnel wounds of the left thigh and pelvis with retained foreign bodies and scars, and residuals of shell fragment wounds of the right thigh and left leg. The veteran was also denied entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities.
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.