The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient medical opinions regarding the etiology of the Veteran's ear conditions, including bilateral otitis and basal cell carcinoma on the right ear. The examiner is requested to provide an opinion as to whether any diagnosed ear disorder or disability is at least as likely as not related to service-connected frostbite of ears.
The deciding factor: The Board found that there are insufficient medical opinions regarding the etiology of the Veteran's ear conditions, including bilateral otitis and basal cell carcinoma on the right ear. The examiner must provide an opinion as to whether any diagnosed ear disorder or disability is at least as likely as not related to service-connected frostbite of ears.
- Claimed conditions
- bilateral otitis, ear wax build up, spot on the ear, ear canal hardening, basal cell carcinoma of the right ear
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- November 28, 2022
- Citation
- 22066069
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 22066069.
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 appeals for service connection and increased ratings have been dismissed due to his death. The claims are not considered active as the appellant is deceased.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including scheduling a VA examination to assess the combined effects of his service-connected disabilities on his employability.
- Denied
The Board found that there is no evidence to support the Veteran's claim of exposure to nuclear testing at White Sands, New Mexico during service. The Board also noted that there was no in-service diagnosis or treatment for basal cell carcinoma and concluded that the current condition is not related to service.
- Denied
The Veteran's appeal was denied for her claims of service connection for bilateral hearing loss and ear wax build up, as well as her claim for an increased rating for thoracic scoliosis. The Veteran withdrew her appeals regarding the first two issues prior to a decision being made.
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.