Citation Nr: 0811696 Decision Date: 04/09/08 Archive Date: 04/23/08 DOCKET NO. 06-11 816 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Oakland, California THE ISSUE Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for the service- connected residuals of left eye chorioretinitis. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: California Department of Veterans Affairs ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Peters, Legal Intern INTRODUCTION The veteran had active military service from April 1951 until he was honorably discharged in January 1953. During his military service, the veteran served in the Korean Conflict, earning a Korean Service Medal with one Bronze Star and a Purple Heart. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from the a rating decision of the RO. The appeal is being remanded to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the veteran if further action is required. REMAND The veteran, while in service, was injured when a hand grenade blew up, injuring his left eye with fragments. The veteran stated that he had surgery on his left eye and regained sight two months thereafter. However, the veteran also states that he has had blurriness, cloudiness and glares in his field of vision ever since. On November 22, 2004, the veteran filed his claim for increase. The service-connected residuals of left eye chorioretinitis is rated under Diagnostic Code 6006. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.84a. The Diagnostic Code states that disabilities are rated from 10 to 100 percent under the criteria for impairment of visual acuity or field loss, pain, rest-requirements or episodic incapacity, combining an additional rating of 10 percent during continuance of active pathology, with 10 percent being the minimum rating during active pathology, applying only to the specific codes. 38 C.F.R. § 4.84a, Diagnostic Code 6006 (2007). The veteran was given a VA examination on his eyes in December 2004. The VA examiner stated that he gave the veteran a visual acuity test with his old glasses, which resulted in his right eye being 20/30-1 and his left eye being 20/50+1. On examination, the veteran was also diagnosed with pseudophakia, mild capsular clouding, nasal pterygium and a yellow deposit (possibly a drusen) in his left eye. The doctor noted a cataract in the veteran's right eye, and the veteran had cataract surgery in July 2004 on his left eye. Further, the examination showed that a visual field test was done. The veteran's right eye showed superior constriction of 20 degree, "probably related to the dermatochalasis of the right lid." The left eye showed a "generalized constriction to 20 degrees." The VA doctor also noted that the veteran was scheduled to have laser surgery on the cloudy capsule. Also in the record are private medical records from the veteran's private doctor. In June 2005, Dr. C. did a visual acuity test on the veteran and rated him as 20/40 in his right eye and 20/30-1 in his left eye. However, the doctor did note that the veteran had experienced "floaters in his left eye for many years." Lay statements from the veteran and his daughter are also of record. Both confirm that the veteran had complained of shadows, glares, lines, blurriness and cloudiness since his injury. The veteran reported having a hard time driving because of the floating objects in his vision, as it looks like things are coming at him. The Board finds that the evidence suggests that the veteran has field loss in the left eye, although this is unclear if this is due to his service-connected left eye disability. Furthermore, there are multiple diagnoses of the veteran's left eye, but the etiology of each is not explained in the VA examiner's report as it relates to the veteran's service- connected residuals for left eye chorioretinitis. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The AOJ should take appropriate action to contact the veteran and ask him to provide the names, addresses and approximate dates of treatment for any health care providers, including VA, who may possess additional records pertinent to the increased rating claim on appeal, such as treatment for hearing problems since the most recent evidence dated in April 2005. After obtaining any necessary authorization from the veteran for the release of his private medical records, the AOJ should obtain and associate with the file all records that are not currently on file. If the AOJ is unsuccessful in obtaining any such records identified by the veteran, it should inform the veteran and his representative of this and request them to provide a copy of the outstanding medical records if possible. 2. The veteran should be afforded a VA eye examination, with an appropriate examiner, to determine the current extent of his service-connected residuals of left eye chorioretinitis. The veteran's claims file should be made available to the examiner prior to the examination, and the examiner is requested to review the entire claims file in conjunction with the examination. All tests and studies deemed necessary by the examiner should be performed. It is essential that such testing encompass both visual acuity testing and field vision testing and that the results of all such testing, particularly the field testing graphics, should be interpreted in detail by the examiner. Such results should also be discussed in the context of the service-connected residuals of left eye chorioretinitis. The examiner also should determine whether the veteran suffers from other related eye changes due to the service-connected disability. A complete rationale should be given for all opinions and conclusions expressed in a typewritten report. 3. The AOJ must notify the veteran that it is his responsibility to report for the above examination and to cooperate in the development of the claim. The consequences for failure to report for a VA examination without good cause may include denial of the claim. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.158, 3.655 (2007). 4. After completion of the above development, the veteran's claim for a compensable evaluation for the service- connected residuals of left eye chorioretinitis should be readjudicated in light of all the evidence of record. If the determination remains less than fully favorable to the veteran, he and his representative should be furnished with a Supplemental Statement of the Case and given an opportunity to respond. Then, if indicated, this case should be returned to the Board for the purpose of appellate disposition. The veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2007). ______________________________________________ STEPHEN L. WILKINS Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2007).