Citation Nr: 1006803 Decision Date: 02/24/10 Archive Date: 03/02/10 DOCKET NO. 08-16 175 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUE Entitlement to an increased rating for non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy of the eyes, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Mary C. Suffoletta, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from November 1965 to November 1967. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2007 decision of the RO that, in pertinent part, assigned a 10 percent disability rating for mild non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy of bilateral eyes effective September 2005. The Veteran appealed for an increased disability rating. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the Veteran when further action is required. REMAND The Veteran contends that his service-connected non- proliferative diabetic retinopathy of bilateral eyes is more severe than currently rated, and warrants an increased disability rating. Here, the report of VA examination in September 2007 revealed clinically significant macular edema of both eyes. The Veteran reported burning or stinging of both eyes, and symptoms of blurring. Examination revealed the Veteran's corrected vision was 20/50 for the right eye, and 20/25 for the left eye. Non-visually significant cataracts also were noted for each eye. Since then, VA records show that the Veteran has been scheduled and rescheduled for additional laser eye surgery. The Veteran is entitled to a new VA examination where there is evidence that the condition has worsened since the last examination. Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997); Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377 (1994); VAOPGCPREC 11-95 (1995). Recent changes to the rating criteria for evaluation of eye disabilities are applicable only to claims received by VA on or after December 10, 2008 and not applicable in this matter. See 73 Fed. Reg. 66543 (November 10, 2008). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain and associate with the claims folder treatment records from the North Florida, South Georgia VA health system dated from February 2009 to present. 2. Afford the Veteran an appropriate VA examination, for evaluation of the service-connected mild non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy of bilateral eyes. All appropriate tests should be conducted. The entire claims file, to include a complete copy of this REMAND, must be made available to the examiner, and the examination report should note review of the file. The examiner should render specific findings as to the extent to which the Veteran experiences impairment of visual acuity or field loss, pain, rest- requirements, or episodic incapacity, as well as whether the Veteran is experiencing active pathology. To the extent possible, the examiner should distinguish the symptoms attributable to service-connected non- proliferative diabetic retinopathy of bilateral eyes from other eye disabilities (e.g., cataracts). However, if it is not medically possible to do so, the examiner should clearly so state, indicating that the findings are with respect to the Veteran's overall bilateral eye impairment. These specific findings are needed to rate the Veteran's disability in accordance with the rating schedule. It is therefore important that the examiner furnish the requested information. 3. After ensuring that the requested actions are completed, the RO or AMC should re-adjudicate the claim on appeal-taking into consideration all applicable rating criteria, to include combining an additional 10 percent during continuance of active pathology for disabilities rated under Diagnostic Codes 6000 to 6009 (see 38 C.F.R. § 4.84a (2008)). If the benefits sought are not fully granted, the RO or AMC must furnish a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC), before the claims file is returned to the Board, if otherwise in order. No action is required of the veteran until he is notified by the RO; however, the veteran is advised that failure to report for any scheduled examination may result in the denial of his claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655 (2009). 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. 2009). _________________________________________________ THOMAS J. DANNAHER 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) (2009).