The Board has remanded the case due to lack of substantial compliance with previous remand directives, and a new VA examination by a podiatrist is required.
The deciding factor: The decision was remanded because there was not substantial compliance with the previous remand directives.
- Claimed conditions
- pes cavus, tinea unguium, peripheral vascular disease
- How they argued it
- Secondary to another service-connected condition
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- October 21, 2024
- Citation
- 24032030
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 1,836 · Granted: 31% (granted or partly granted, in the vetted decisions on this site)
Judge attribution: 2025 complete; earlier years partial.
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 24032030.
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.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's peripheral vascular disease is being remanded due to a duty to assist error, and an addendum opinion is needed to determine if the condition is related to service or his service-connected CAD.
- Granted
The Board has granted service connection for diabetes mellitus type II (DM) and coronary artery disease (CAD), finding that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents during his active duty at Fort McClellan. The Board also found support for secondary service connection for diabetic neuropathy of various extremities, peripheral vascular disease, and gastroparesis as secondary to DM.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has determined that the Veteran's initial claims for service connection were not properly considered and remanded to obtain a full copy of her service treatment records. The Veteran was also scheduled for an examination to determine if she had any current bilateral foot disorders, including pes planus, pes cavus, plantar fasciitis, heel spurs, or pain.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the case due to an inadequate VA examination, requiring a new one with a proper evaluation of the Veteran's foot disabilities.
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.