The Board has decided to remand the case due to the need for clarification regarding whether the Veteran has an additional disability caused by VA treatment and if so, whether it was due to carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill or error in judgment. The examiner is asked to provide a comprehensive opinion based on the provided medical records and opinions.
The deciding factor: The Board needs clarification as to whether the Veteran's atonic bladder disability is an additional disability caused by VA treatment and if so, whether it was due to carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill or error in judgment.
- Claimed conditions
- atonic bladder, benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH), urinary retention, neurogenic or a severely dysfunctional bladder, severely enlarged prostate
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- January 27, 2021
- Citation
- 21004627
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 21004627.
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: Dismissed
The Veteran withdrew his appeal for service connection of Diabetes Mellitus, Type II and urinary retention (also claimed as bladder condition). The Board dismissed the appeal due to the withdrawal.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's thalamic injury and resulting disabilities are the result of a non-VA procedure performed at MUSC. The Board finds that VA may have proximately caused this treatment by referring the Veteran to MUSC for care, but the evidence is incomplete regarding whether VA specifically referred him or if additional records need to be obtained.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case for further adjudication due to insufficient evidence regarding whether a prostate condition, including benign hyperplasia and cancer, is secondary to type II diabetes mellitus. The issue of an earlier effective date for service connection for prostate cancer remains unresolved as well.
- Whole decision: Granted
The Board has granted service connection for benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) as the Veteran's symptoms had their onset during his military 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.