The Veteran's death is being remanded due to concerns about the care provided at the VA medical center in Baltimore, Maryland. The appellant claims that her husband died as a result of negligence or fault on the part of VA during his stay.
The deciding factor: The Board found the initial opinion inadequate and requested an addendum to address the Veteran's decline in health over the first weekend at the VAMC and the presence (or lack thereof) of a DNR order.
- Claimed conditions
- Non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, Electrical storm
- How they argued it
- Not specified
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- May 25, 2021
- Citation
- 21032122
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 21032122.
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: Remanded (sent back)
The Board remands the claims for service connection for Tachy-Brady syndrome, atrial fibrillation, and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy due to an inadequate VA examination and a need for additional evidence.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's claim for an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for his heart disability is being remanded due to the need for additional VA treatment records from non-VA providers and a complete copy of records from Yakima Memorial Heart, Lung, and Vascular.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board previously denied the claim for service connection for CHF. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has remanded the case due to an inadequate statement of reasons or bases regarding the adequacy of the August 2021 VA examination, which did not consider the recent holding in Spicer v. McDonough.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's heart disability is currently rated at 30 percent, and the Board has decided to remand the case for a new examination due to an indication of worsening symptoms.
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.