The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete records and the need for a supplemental VA opinion. The Veteran's claim is related to complications from urodynamics performed at the VA Medical Center on March 2, 2015.
The deciding factor: The decision was remanded because of missing consent forms and the need for an updated medical opinion regarding the cause of any additional disabilities resulting from the urodynamic procedure.
- Claimed conditions
- scar inside the penis, blood with urination, need for repeated dilation, bladder infections, burning sensation and pain
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- February 24, 2022
- Citation
- 22010882
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 22010882.
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.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's claims for service connection for lymphoma cancer stage III, bladder infections, and lumbar spine disorder are being remanded due to the need for additional medical examinations and opinions.
- Denied
The Board denied service connection for kidney stones and bladder infections, finding no current disability in the Veteran's records. The claims were based on presumed exposure to herbicides during service in Thailand.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case for further development, including obtaining a full March 2015 consent form and a supplemental VA opinion to address whether the urodynamic procedure resulted in additional disability.
- Denied
The Board denied the appellant's claims for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1815 and § 1805 as she does not meet the legal criteria to qualify for benefits due to her father's exposure to herbicide agents in Vietnam.
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.