The Board remands the claims for additional development, specifically to obtain retrospective VA medical opinions and address the ameliorative effects of medication.
The deciding factor: The VA examiner's opinions failed to adequately comply with the Board's directives regarding the criteria noted in Correia v. McDonald and Sharp v. Shulkin, as well as addressing the ameliorative effects of medication.
- Claimed conditions
- left knee degenerative arthritis and patellofemoral arthritis, right knee degenerative arthritis and patellofemoral arthritis, left ankle degenerative arthritis with lateral instability
- How they argued it
- Not specified
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- May 9, 2025
- Citation
- 25006323
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 Board remands the claims for additional development, specifically to obtain adequate retrospective VA medical opinions addressing the criteria noted in Correia v. McDonald and Sharp v. Shulkin.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board remanded the veteran's claims for a higher rating due to inadequate medical examinations and unclear effects of medication on his knee and ankle disabilities.
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.