The Board has remanded the case for further development due to a previous decision being vacated and remanded by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). Specifically, the BPPV rating is still in dispute as the Veteran's wife used the term 'staggering' which may be related to dizziness. The TDIU issue was also remanded but will be deferred until further evidence can make the Veteran eligible for schedular consideration.
The deciding factor: The decision is based on a previous vacated and remanded case where the Court found that the Board did not provide adequate reasons bases for determining that the evidence of record did not meet the criteria for occasional staggering, which is required for the maximum rating. The term 'staggering' used by the Veteran's wife may be related to dizziness rather than BPPV.
- Claimed conditions
- benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV), chronic motion sickness
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- May 4, 2021
- Citation
- 21026823
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 21026823.
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 Veteran's claims for service connection for weight gain, sleep disorder, BPPV, and headache disorder are being remanded due to the need for additional medical opinions.,Specifically, a VA examiner is required to provide an opinion regarding whether the Veteran's BPPV and headache disorder are causally or etiologically related to his military service.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the case due to a pre-decisional duty to assist error in relying on an inadequate VA medical opinion regarding the relationship between the Veteran's BPPV and his service-connected tinnitus.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding service connection for BPPV, including a lack of medical opinions on causation and aggravation.
- Granted
The Veteran's BPPV is found to be secondary to his service-connected bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, and the claim for service connection for BPPV is granted.
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.