The Board has granted the Veteran's claim of service connection for left salpingo oophorectomy, finding that her current diagnosis is causally related to her in-service surgery.
The deciding factor: The evidence supports the Veteran's statements and establishes she was on active duty at the time of her September 2008 left salpingostomy, which led to her left salpingo oophorectomy.
- Claimed conditions
- left salpingo oophorectomy
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- July 13, 2021
- Citation
- 21042620
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 21042620.
What this means for you
A grant means the Board agreed the veteran was entitled to the benefit. Decisions like this show the kind of evidence and arguments that tend to succeed for claims like it.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Denied
The Veteran's appeal for a higher rating and service connection for her conditions was denied. The Board found no evidence of a current hormonal disability, and the Veteran's panic disorder and skin issues were not linked to her hysterectomy.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete service records and the need for a VA examination to determine if the Veteran's left salpingo oophorectomy is related to her service, including any verified periods of active duty training (ACDUTRA).
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's appeal is remanded for obtaining all relevant VA treatment records and scheduling a VA examination to address her claimed disability due to hormonal abnormalities, secondary to the residuals of status post hysterectomy. The examiner will provide opinions on whether any acquired psychiatric disability (panic disorder) was proximately due or aggravated by her service-connected disabilities.
- Denied
The Board found that the Veteran did not sustain any permanent and/or chronic disability as a result of treatment rendered at this medical facility in 1999, and there was no evidence of carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, error in judgment, or similar instance of fault on the part of VA personnel. Therefore, the claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for an April 1999 hysterectomy is denied.
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.