The Board has found the opinions on service connection for floor-of-the-mouth cancer and loss of sensation of the tongue inadequate due to lack of adequate nexus opinions. The case is being remanded for new VA examinations.
The deciding factor: The previous opinions were insufficient as they did not address the presumed herbicide agent exposure or provide a clear explanation for their conclusions.
- Claimed conditions
- floor-of-the-mouth cancer, loss of sensation of the tongue
- How they argued it
- Presumptive (no nexus needed)
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- July 8, 2021
- Citation
- 21041347
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 21041347.
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 has remanded the cases due to inadequate medical opinions regarding the etiology of the Veteran's floor-of-the-mouth cancer and tongue disability. The VA must obtain a new opinion from an examiner.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to incomplete records and inadequate medical opinions. The Veteran's floor-of-the-mouth cancer is being examined again, as well as his loss of tongue sensation.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case for further development and consideration of all evidence, including newly submitted medical records from Dr. B.G.
- Whole decision: 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.