The Board has determined that additional development is needed for the issues of entitlement to initial compensable evaluations for residuals of a left upper lobe lobectomy and a residual surgical scar from January 22, 2013, to June 9, 2014. The case will be returned to the Board for further review.
The deciding factor: The Joint Motion found that additional development is needed due to inadequate medical opinions provided in previous decisions.
- Claimed conditions
- residuals of left upper lobectomy, residual surgical scar
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- March 2, 2023
- Citation
- 23012877
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 23012877.
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.
- Partly granted
The Board granted service connection for atrial fibrillation, residual surgical scar, mandibular bone disability, and left ear hearing loss. The claims for earlier effective dates were denied, and some claims were remanded.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board remands the claim for a compensable rating for nephrolithiasis due to inadequate development of evidence, including failure to obtain relevant medical records and an adequate examination.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has determined that procedural errors occurred in the handling of the Veteran's appeal and has ordered remand for further action.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's service-connected disabilities are deemed to be severe enough to prevent him from securing and following a substantially gainful occupation, but additional development is needed for the TDIU claim. For SMC based on need for aid and attendance, further examination is required as the Veteran has not been provided with such an evaluation.
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.