The Veteran's claim for service connection for lupus anticoagulant syndrome is remanded due to the need for a VA medical examination and opinion regarding the nature and etiology of his condition, including as related to toxic exposure risk activity during his active service. The AOJ must consider all evidence, including lay statements, medical records, and other medical opinions of record.
The deciding factor: The Board finds that remand is warranted for a VA medical examination and opinion regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran's lupus anticoagulant syndrome due to toxic exposure risk activity during his active service.
- Claimed conditions
- lupus anticoagulant syndrome
- How they argued it
- Presumptive (no nexus needed)
- Exposure basis
- Camp Lejeune water
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- April 25, 2024
- Citation
- A24021157
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 A24021157.
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 remands the claim for further development, including obtaining additional medical records and allowing the Veteran to provide any additional evidence.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining VA treatment records and scheduling a VA examination to determine the possible etiology of the Veteran's lupus anticoagulant syndrome and pulmonary embolism.
- Denied
The Board found that the veteran's lupus nephritis with lupus anticoagulant syndrome and chronic renal insufficiency did not have its onset in service or within one year of discharge, and there is no competent evidence relating it to any disease, exposure, or injury occurring in service. The claim for service connection was denied.
- Dismissed
The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for diabetes mellitus type II with erectile dysfunction was denied as the evidence did not show that he had been diagnosed and manifested to at least a 10 percent disability rating on or prior to May 8, 2001.
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.