The Board has decided to remand the case due to a pre-decisional error in the duty to assist, specifically regarding range of motion testing. The Veteran will need to undergo a new VA medical examination.
The deciding factor: There was an issue with the previous VA medical examination's failure to comply with requirements for range of motion testing as per Mitchell v. Shinseki (2011).
- Claimed conditions
- healed fracture of the fibula, right leg
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- March 25, 2026
- Citation
- A26027149
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 A26027149.
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.
- Granted
The Veteran's healed fracture of the fibula, right leg is granted an effective date of November 30, 2011, and a rating of 10 percent from September 14, 2012, to April 21, 2019.
- Dismissed
The Board dismissed the readjudication of service connection for healed fracture of the fibula, right leg, as it was already granted in a previous decision. Service connection for prostate cancer is not warranted due to lack of new and relevant evidence.
- Denied
The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for his service-connected lumbar myositis, psychoneurosis and conversion hysteria, residuals of shrapnel wounds of the left thigh and pelvis with retained foreign bodies and scars, and residuals of shell fragment wounds of the right thigh and left leg. The veteran was also denied entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claim for an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for his service-connected coronary artery disease, finding that the evidence did not support a higher rating based on the severity of his condition.
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.