The Board has decided to remand the Veteran's claim for arthritis of major joints, including his service-connected right elbow, right shoulder, cervical spine, and degenerative spine disabilities. The case is being returned due to a lack of substantial compliance with the June 2020 Board remand directives regarding radiation exposure.
The deciding factor: The VA examiner did not address whether radiation exposure could have caused the Veteran's arthritis in his hands and knees as requested by the June 2020 Board Decision.
- Claimed conditions
- arthritis of major joints
- How they argued it
- Presumptive (no nexus needed)
- Exposure basis
- Ionizing radiation
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- March 18, 2021
- Citation
- 21015743
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 21015743.
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
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Denied
The Board found that the veteran does not have current arthritis of major joints or bilateral high frequency hearing loss, and thus denied service connection for these conditions.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete development and VCAA compliance issues. The veteran is required to undergo VA examinations for arthritis of major joints and high frequency hearing loss, and her claims will be reviewed again after these exams are completed.
- Partly granted
The Board has reopened the veteran's claim for service connection due to new and material evidence submitted, including medical records from his private physician and VA examinations. The claims are well-grounded as there is sufficient evidence to suggest a link between the veteran's current conditions and his military service.
- 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.