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

The Veteran's duodenal ulcer disease is currently rated at the maximum allowable under Diagnostic Code 7305, and a higher rating is not warranted.,The Veteran's superficial scar status post excision of left knee cyst is currently rated at the minimum allowable under Diagnostic Code 7804, as it does not meet the criteria for an increased rating. The Veteran has another scar in his left lower extremity that is not painful or unstable.,The Veteran's residual scar of the left lower extremity due to a total knee replacement is currently rated at the minimum allowable under Diagnostic Code 7805, as it does not meet the criteria for an increased rating. The Veteran has another scar in his left lower extremity that is not painful or unstable.

The deciding factor: The evidence does not support a higher rating for duodenal ulcer disease due to the current disability picture and the maximum allowable under Diagnostic Code 7305.,The evidence does not support an increased rating for superficial scar status post excision of left knee cyst as it is currently rated at the minimum allowable under Diagnostic Code 7804, with no painful or unstable scars meeting the criteria for a higher rating.,The evidence does not support an increased rating for residual scar of the left lower extremity due to total knee replacement as it is currently rated at the minimum allowable under Diagnostic Code 7805, with no painful or unstable scars meeting the criteria for a higher rating.

Claimed conditions
duodenal ulcer disease, superficial scar status post excision of left knee cyst, residual scar of the left lower extremity due to a total knee replacement
How they argued it
Direct service connection
Exposure basis
None
Rating assigned
None in this decision
Decision date
January 3, 2023
Citation
23000189

Veterans Law Judge

KRISTI L. GUNN

Decisions by this judge: 2,062 · Granted: 34% (granted or partly granted, in the vetted decisions on this site)

Judge attribution: 2025 complete; earlier years partial.

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 23000189.

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.