The Veteran's unauthorized medical expenses for lacerations to his fingers on June 29, 2014 are granted as the treatment was rendered in an emergency situation and VA facilities were not feasibly available.
The deciding factor: The treatment provided met the prudent layperson definition of an emergency due to significant blood loss and the Veteran's belief that he had cut himself to the bone.
- Claimed conditions
- laceration
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- September 25, 2023
- Citation
- 23053318
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 23053318.
What this means for you
A grant means the Board allowed the benefit or issue identified in this decision. Review the original order: other issues in the same appeal may have a different outcome, and this decision does not predict another claim.
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 Veteran's right knee disability is rated at 10 percent for the entire period on appeal, and a separate rating of 20 percent for right knee lateral instability from December 26, 2019. The claim for an increased rating for chronic right knee strain, laceration, and contusion was denied.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Veteran's appeal for a higher rating for his service-connected left foot disability and compensable rating for left foot residual scars was denied. The Board found that the evidence did not support a higher rating than 20 percent for the left foot disability, as it is characterized by moderately severe symptomatology throughout the appeal period. For the left foot residual scars, the evidence did not meet the criteria for a compensable rating under Diagnostic Code 7802.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Veteran's appeal for a higher rating for his service-connected left foot disability and compensable rating for left foot residual scars was denied. The Board found that the evidence did not support a higher rating than 20 percent for the left foot disability, as it is characterized by moderately severe symptomatology throughout the appeal period. For the left foot residual scars, the evidence did not meet the criteria for a compensable rating under Diagnostic Code 7802.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Veteran's appeal for a higher rating for his service-connected left foot disability and compensable rating for left foot residual scars was denied. The Board found that the evidence did not support a higher rating than 20 percent for the left foot disability, as it is characterized by moderately severe symptomatology throughout the appeal period. For the left foot residual scars, the evidence did not meet the criteria for a compensable rating under Diagnostic Code 7802.
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.