Veterans’ RightsAn independent resource for veterans
← All decisions
Remanded (sent back)

The Veteran's renal cysts are denied as service connection is not established due to lack of a medical nexus.,Service connection for polycythemia vera and familial erythrocytosis, as well as iron deficiency anemia secondary to these conditions, is remanded as the etiology remains unclear.,Gout is remanded as its relationship to the Veteran's service on Camp Lejeune exposure is not established.,Hypertension is remanded due to insufficient evidence regarding its cause and potential relation to service.,Diverticulitis and diverticulosis are also remanded for further evaluation.

The deciding factor: The medical evidence does not support a causal relationship between the Veteran's renal cysts and his in-service exposure to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune.,The examiner did not address whether the Veteran's familial erythrocytosis was aggravated by his conceded exposure to contaminated water, nor did they provide an opinion regarding polycythemia vera. The remand is necessary for these issues to be addressed.,The VA examiner found that gout is less likely than not related to the Veteran's service on Camp Lejeune exposure and provided reasons based on smoking status which may not apply in this case.,The VA examiner concluded that hypertension was less likely than not related to the Veteran's service on Camp Lejeune exposure, but did not consider other potential causes such as aging or excess body weight. The remand is necessary for a more comprehensive opinion.,The VA examiner found diverticulitis and diverticulosis were less likely than not related to the Veteran's service on Camp Lejeune exposure, but did not address the Veteran's non-smoking status which may affect this conclusion.

Claimed conditions
renal cysts, polycythemia vera, familial erythrocytosis, iron deficiency anemia, gout, hypertension, diverticulitis, diverticulosis
How they argued it
Not specified
Exposure basis
Camp Lejeune water
Rating assigned
None in this decision
Decision date
December 8, 2022
Citation
22067800

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 22067800.

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.

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.