The Veteran seeks reimbursement for unauthorized dental expenses incurred on April 7, 2011. The case is being remanded to consider the claim under the statutory authority of 38 U.S.C. �� 1725 and 1728.
The deciding factor: The denial was based on lack of prior authorization for unauthorized dental expenses incurred in an emergency, and the AOJ must now consider this under the relevant statutes and regulations.
- Claimed conditions
- Not specified in this decision
- How they argued it
- Not specified
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- January 5, 2022
- Citation
- 22000578
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 2,050 · Granted: 32% (granted or partly granted, in the vetted decisions on this site)
Judge attribution: 2025 complete; earlier years partial.
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 22000578.
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
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.