The Board has remanded the case due to the need for an addendum VA opinion considering new medical evidence, including a July 2020 cardiac procedure.
The deciding factor: The Veteran's representative asserts that there is no statement from the examiner addressing a possible link between the Veteran's heart disorder and military service that specifically considers the July 2020 cardiac procedure.
- Claimed conditions
- heart disorder, arteriosclerotic heart disorder, ischemic heart disease (IHD), atriial fibrillation, angina
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- May 22, 2021
- Citation
- 21031471
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 21031471.
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 Veteran's claims for service connection due to errors in obtaining relevant medical records and authorization for private treatment providers. The issues include heart disorder, OSA, sinusitis, lumbar spine disorder, and right knee disorder all related to Agent Orange exposure.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the issues of service connection for atrial fibrillation, benign prostatic hypertrophy with outflow obstruction, congestive heart failure, and hypertension due to inadequate VA opinions. The Veteran's exposure during service is conceded to include asbestos and gas chamber exposures.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a heart disorder, to include ischemic heart disease (IHD), finding that there was not sufficient evidence to establish a link between his current condition and his military service. The Board noted that the Veteran did not have active military service from January 9, 1962, to July 31, 1980, and that he was not exposed to herbicide agents during his military service.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient consideration of secondary service connection for coronary artery disease (CAD) related to the Veteran's service-connected foot disability and depression.
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.