The Board has remanded the case due to a lack of an examination for the Veteran's bilateral ear condition, which includes perforated tympanic membrane, chronic ear infection, and eustachian tube dysfunction. The Veteran is seeking service connection for these conditions.
The deciding factor: The VA failed to schedule and conduct an appropriate examination related to the Veteran's claimed bilateral ear conditions.
- Claimed conditions
- bilateral ear condition, perforated tympanic membrane, chronic ear infection, eustachian tube dysfunction
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- August 1, 2023
- Citation
- 23042175
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 23042175.
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 obstructive sleep apnea is granted as secondary to his service-connected disabilities, with obesity serving as an intermediary step.
- Granted
The Board has granted readjudication of the Veteran's claims for service connection due to new and relevant evidence submitted since the June 2024 decision. The issues remain remanded.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has dismissed the appeals for chronic neuralgia and eustachian tube dysfunction due to withdrawal by the appellant. The Veteran's generalized anxiety disorder is granted, but the cervical spine degenerative arthritis and scar from hernia repair are remanded for further development.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has determined that the Veteran's eligibility for PCAFC benefits is in dispute due to a lack of private medical records, and thus the case must be remanded to obtain these records and provide an adequate medical opinion.
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.