The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient efforts in obtaining VA treatment records from May 2011 to July 2011, particularly those related to a tick bite. The Veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 is also remanded for a new opinion from an independent medical expert.
The deciding factor: The Board found that the AOJ did not make efforts to obtain additional records as directed and that the August 2022 opinion provided by the AOJ does not substantially comply with the August 2022 remand directives.
- Claimed conditions
- tick bite
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- December 1, 2022
- Citation
- 22067002
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 22067002.
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.
- Granted
The Veteran's unauthorized medical expenses for a tick bite and related treatment at Tuality Forest Grove Hospital on May 8, 2014 are granted as the condition was not service-connected but met the criteria for emergency treatment.
- Denied
The Board found no evidence of current diabetic foot ulcers and determined that a separate compensable rating for this condition is not warranted.
- 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.