Veterans’ RightsAn independent resource for veterans
← All decisions
Remanded (sent back)

The appeal for an earlier effective date for COPD is dismissed as the NOD was untimely filed.,New and material evidence has been received to reopen claims of service connection for bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, sleep apnea, an acquired psychiatric and/or cognitive disorder, and bilateral vision loss. These claims are REMANDED for further development.,The appeal for service connection for bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, sleep apnea, an acquired psychiatric and/or cognitive disorder, and bilateral vision loss is REMANDED as new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claims.,Service connection for COPD remains denied. The claim is REMANDED due to the presence of new and material evidence regarding secondary service connection.,The appeal for a rating in excess of 30 percent for COPD, TDIU, and SMC based on need for aid and attendance or housebound status is REMANDED.

The deciding factor: The NOD was filed more than one year after the issuance of the final September 2011 rating decision, making it untimely.,New and material evidence has been received that relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claims, specifically a relationship between the Veteran's service-connected COPD and his claimed disorders.,The appellant provided new medical treatises in support of secondary service connection for the Veteran's claimed conditions. The presence of these conditions prior to death is also noted.,Service connection remains denied as there was no evidence showing a direct link between the Veteran's service and his current diagnoses, or that COPD caused or aggravated any of his other disorders.,The claim for an increased rating for COPD is REMANDED due to new and material evidence received.

Claimed conditions
COPD, bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, sleep apnea, acquired psychiatric and/or cognitive disorder, bilateral vision loss
How they argued it
Secondary to another service-connected condition
Exposure basis
None
Rating assigned
None in this decision
Decision date
November 6, 2024
Citation
24032723

Veterans Law Judge

A. JAEGER

Decisions by this judge: 1,676 · Granted: 24% (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 24032723.

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.

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.