The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate development of evidence regarding the etiology of left ventricular hypertrophy and diastolic dysfunction, which were diagnosed during the pendency of the claim. The VA examiner is requested to provide an opinion on whether these conditions are related to service or if they have been caused by a service-connected condition.
The deciding factor: The Board found that the January 2021 VA examination did not adequately address the etiology of left ventricular hypertrophy and diastolic dysfunction, which were diagnosed during the pendency of the claim.
- Claimed conditions
- left ventricular hypertrophy, diastolic dysfunction
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- November 22, 2021
- Citation
- 21069915
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 21069915.
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: Granted
The Board has granted the Veteran's claims for service connection for left ventricular hypertrophy and Fabry's disease as secondary to his service-connected hypertension.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Veteran's claim for service connection for hypertension, including as secondary to his service-connected left knee osteoarthritis, has been denied. The Board found that the evidence does not support a finding of direct service connection or secondary service connection.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to a duty to assist error, and will consider service connection for heart disorders based on direct evidence or secondary to hypertension.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to errors in obtaining relevant private treatment records and VA opinions, which were not sufficient for a decision on service connection.
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.