The Board denied the Veteran's motion to revise a May 1993 decision denying service connection for a heart condition, claimed as enlarged heart, based on an allegation of clear and unmistakable error (CUE).
The deciding factor: The AOJ did not commit CUE by denying the claim in 1993, as the evidence at that time did not support a finding of cardiomegaly or hypertension to a compensable degree.
- Claimed conditions
- enlarged heart
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- July 9, 2025
- Citation
- A25058860
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 2,156 · Granted: 29% (granted or partly granted, in the indexed 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. Read the original VA decision (opens in a new tab) using citation A25058860.
What this means for you
A final Board denial may be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, generally within 120 days of the Board mailing date. A Supplemental Claim with new and relevant evidence is a separate option. Another Higher-Level Review of the Board decision is not available. Check your own notice: this historical decision does not set your deadline.
What you can do next
Use your own notice and decision stage. A remanded issue is not a final court-appealable denial. VA review guidance and CAVC filing instructions (U.S. federal; reviewed October 7, 2026).
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to a lack of medical opinion addressing whether the Veteran's enlarged heart is directly related to service or secondary to his hypertension.
- Whole decision: Partly granted
The Board granted service connection for hypertension and hypothyroidism, both due to presumed exposure to herbicide agents under the PACT Act. Other claims were either dismissed or remanded for further evidence.
- Whole decision: Partly granted
The veteran's claims for higher ratings for knee conditions and hemorrhoids were denied. However, the veteran was granted a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU). Claims for service connection for an enlarged heart were denied, while claims for benign prostatic hypertrophy and erectile dysfunction were remanded.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims due to a lack of VA examination and opinion regarding his service connection claims for various disabilities, including bilateral hearing loss, arthritis, an enlarged heart, frostbite, prostate enlargement, kidney tumor, and high blood pressure. The Veteran contends that these conditions began during service or are related to service.
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.