The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for further development and consideration, including obtaining medical opinions from an oncologist or similar specialist to address the etiology of his skin conditions and loss of testicles. The claims are related to herbicide exposure and in-service toxic exposure risk activities (TERA).
The deciding factor: The Board found that the previous remand requirements were not fully addressed, including obtaining a medical opinion from an oncologist regarding the Veteran's TERA exposure and its relation to his skin conditions.
- Claimed conditions
- Fournier's gangrene, skin lesions or growths
- How they argued it
- Not specified
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- October 10, 2023
- Citation
- 23055264
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 23055264.
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
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran's perianal disability, including whether it is related to service-connected conditions or Gulf War environmental exposures.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's claims for service connection for a skin condition and loss of testicles are being remanded due to the need for additional medical examination. The examiner will assess whether these conditions were caused or aggravated by his service-connected B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
- Denied
The Board denied compensation under 38 U.S.C. §1151 for Fournier’s gangrene, right leg nerve damage, and an acquired psychiatric disorder including PTSD due to the lack of evidence showing that the Veteran's additional disabilities were caused by carelessness, negligence, or similar instance of fault on the part of VA.
- Denied
The Board denied the appellant's claim for reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses incurred at Providence Hospital from June 29, 2006 to July 6, 2006 due to lack of prior authorization and because VA facilities were feasibly available.
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.