The Board has remanded the case due to non-compliance with previous instructions, including a need for an addendum medical opinion addressing the Veteran's private ophthalmologist's February 2021 opinion.
The deciding factor: The VA examiner was instructed to address the February 2021 private medical opinion of Dr. S.S., but did not do so in their reports.
- Claimed conditions
- bilateral eye disability, vision loss, cataracts
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- June 13, 2022
- Citation
- 22034448
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 22034448.
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 Veteran's tinnitus and hearing loss claims are denied as there is no current diagnosis of these conditions.,The Veteran's high cholesterol, dementia, stroke, prostate cancer, cataracts, diabetes, hypertension, CHF, and myocardial infarction claims are denied due to lack of service connection evidence or insufficient evidence to establish a nexus between the disabilities and active duty service.,The Veteran was exposed to toxins during his military service but there is no evidence linking these exposures to any of the claimed conditions.
- Dismissed
The appeal for service connection of cataracts has been dismissed due to the appellant's death prior to a Board decision.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has determined that the Veteran's claim for service connection for a bilateral eye condition should be remanded due to pre-decisional duty-to-assist errors and the need for an updated TERA Memorandum. The Veteran was not provided with a VA examination, and her allegations of exposure during basic training were not addressed.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to a duty-to-assist error, specifically failing to obtain an opinion regarding whether the Veteran's current bilateral eye disability is related to service exposure to burn pits. The AOJ should obtain such an opinion.
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.