The Board has determined that the appellant's December 2019 VA Form 10182 was improperly used as a notice of disagreement (NOD) and should have been recognized under the Legacy system. The appeal is being remanded to re-docket it in the Legacy framework, with the appellant's December 2019 VA Form 10182 accepted as a timely NOD for the issue on appeal.
The deciding factor: The Board found procedural error due to the improper use of the VA Form 10182 and remanded the case to re-docket it under the Legacy system, accepting the appellant's December 2019 VA Form 10182 as a timely NOD.
- Claimed conditions
- transitional cell carcinoma of the ureter
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- February 6, 2023
- Citation
- 23007522
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. Read the original VA decision (opens in a new tab) using citation 23007522.
What this means for you
A remand sends an issue back for more development, often a new examination or missing records. It does not award the benefit or decide the final outcome. The original decision explains the additional work ordered.
What you can do next
Use your own notice and decision stage. A remanded issue is not a final court-appealable denial. VA review guidance and CAVC filing instructions (U.S. federal; reviewed October 7, 2026).
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Whole decision: 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.
- Whole decision: 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.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Veteran's service-connected musculoligamentous strain, right knee, is currently rated at 10 percent and the Board finds that a higher rating is not warranted.
- Whole decision: Granted
The Veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD is granted as the evidence shows a current diagnosis of PTSD, an in-service stressor, and a medical link between the two.
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.