The Board has decided to remand the case due to inadequate reasons and bases in the February 2019 decision, specifically regarding the impact of presumed herbicide agent exposure on the Veteran's kidney tumors. The case is now being sent back for a new VA medical opinion.
The deciding factor: The Court found that the Board did not provide adequate reasons and bases to determine substantial compliance with prior remand orders regarding the adequacy of the December 2017 VA examination, particularly in relation to presumed herbicide agent exposure.
- Claimed conditions
- kidney tumors
- How they argued it
- Presumptive (no nexus needed)
- Exposure basis
- Camp Lejeune water
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- February 25, 2021
- Citation
- 21010739
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 21010739.
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 remanded the case due to insufficient compliance with a previous remand directive. The Veteran's kidney tumors are being reviewed again for potential service connection based on exposure at Camp Lejeune.
- Granted
The Board has granted service connection for the Veteran's skin rash, but denied claims for colon tumor, esophagus tumor, liver tumor, kidney tumors, and allergies as they are not related to military service or exposure to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune.
- Granted
The Board of Veterans' Appeals has granted service connection for PTSD and Mood Disorders, both presumed conditions under the PACT Act.
- Dismissed
The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for diabetes mellitus type II with erectile dysfunction was denied as the evidence did not show that he had been diagnosed and manifested to at least a 10 percent disability rating on or prior to May 8, 2001.
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.