The Board has remanded the claims for further development due to duty-to-assist errors in obtaining medical opinions regarding the relationship between the Veteran's service-connected diabetes mellitus type II and his claimed conditions.
The deciding factor: The VA did not obtain appropriate medical opinions prior to the August 2019 rating decision on appeal, which is a duty-to-assist error that requires remand for further development.
- Claimed conditions
- neuropathy of the right lower extremity, neuropathy of the left lower extremity, neuropathy of the left upper extremity, neuropathy of the right upper extremity, benign prostatic hyperplasia (claimed as a urinary condition), heart disability, erectile dysfunction
- How they argued it
- Secondary to another service-connected condition
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- October 28, 2022
- Citation
- A22021828
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 A22021828.
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.
- Dismissed
The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for diabetes mellitus type II with erectile dysfunction was denied as the evidence did not show that he had been diagnosed and manifested to at least a 10 percent disability rating on or prior to May 8, 2001.
- Denied
The Board denied service connection for diabetes mellitus, prostate cancer, visual impairment, hypertension, and erectile dysfunction due to lack of exposure to herbicide agents during service. The Veteran's claims were not granted.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has found that the Veteran meets the basic medical eligibility criteria for PCAFC benefits due to his need for personal care services based on symptoms or residuals of neurological or other impairment or injury. However, further clinical evaluation is needed to determine if participation in the program is in the Veteran's best interest.
- Granted
The Board has granted service connection for the Veteran's bilateral lower and upper extremity neuropathies, finding that they are related to his in-service herbicide exposure (Agent Orange).
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.