The Board has remanded the case due to issues with informed consent documentation and a need for additional development regarding the etiology of the Veteran's death.
The deciding factor: The decision is remanded because there are concerns about the adequacy of informed consent documentation provided to the Veteran prior to her gastrectomy and jugular port placement, which may have affected the determination of whether any events following these procedures were reasonably foreseeable risks.
- Claimed conditions
- Death
- How they argued it
- Not specified
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- November 5, 2024
- Citation
- 24032628
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 2,240 · Granted: 28% (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 24032628.
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.
- Denied
The Board denied the Appellant's petition to reopen her claim for DIC benefits, finding that new and material evidence had not been submitted. The original denial was based on an administrative decision in April 1977 which concluded she was barred from receiving VA compensation due to involvement in her husband's murder.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient information regarding whether VA's care and treatment of the Veteran contributed to his death. The Appellant contends that the Veteran’s death was caused by negligent VA treatment following surgery performed on his right ear.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the DIC claim due to insufficient evidence regarding whether VA's care or treatment caused the Veteran's death. The appellant argues that VA was negligent in prescribing Loratadine, which she contends had complications when combined with his heart condition.
- Granted
The Veteran's death was not service-connected, but the appellant provided sufficient evidence to show she personally incurred funeral and burial expenses. The claim for nonservice-connected burial benefits is granted.
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.