The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate medical opinions regarding whether the Veteran's radial neuropathy is a result of his left arm surgery and if the VA providers demonstrated negligence during the procedure.
The deciding factor: The Board found that the provided medical opinions were insufficient in addressing whether the Veteran's additional disability was reasonably foreseeable or if there was negligence by the VA providers.
- Claimed conditions
- radial neuropathy
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- February 17, 2022
- Citation
- 22009523
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 22009523.
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
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Denied
The Board denied compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for residuals of left arm surgery, including nerve damage and limitation of range of motion due to lack of fault on the part of VA personnel.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate medical opinion regarding whether the Veteran's additional disability was caused by an event not reasonably foreseeable or if VA providers demonstrated carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill when they used an alternate fixation location during his biceps avulsion.
- Denied
The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for his service-connected lumbar myositis, psychoneurosis and conversion hysteria, residuals of shrapnel wounds of the left thigh and pelvis with retained foreign bodies and scars, and residuals of shell fragment wounds of the right thigh and left leg. The veteran was also denied entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claim for an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for his service-connected coronary artery disease, finding that the evidence did not support a higher rating based on the severity of his condition.
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.