Citation Nr: 1007495 Decision Date: 03/01/10 Archive Date: 03/11/10 DOCKET NO. 08-29 485 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Portland, Oregon THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for detached retinas. REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: Oregon Department of Veterans' Affairs ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Catherine Cykowski, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active duty service from March 1970 to March 1974. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2007 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Portland, Oregon. In addition to the issue stated on the title page, the Veteran has pending claims for service connection for traumatic brain injury and lumbar strain with degenerative joint disease and degenerative disc disease of the thoracic spine. The Veteran was given a statement of the case with regard to those issues in October 2009 but the record does not reflect that he has filed a substantive appeal. Accordingly, these issues are not address in this decision. FINDINGS OF FACT The record does not contain a current diagnosis of detached retinas CONCLUSION OF LAW Service connection for detached retinas is not warranted. §§ 1110, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2009). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION I. VA's Duties to Notify and Assist On November 9, 2000, the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), codified at 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5106, 5107, 5126 (West 2002), became law. Regulations implementing the VCAA were then published at 66 Fed. Reg. 45,620, 45,630-32 (August 29, 2001) and are now codified at 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159 and 3.326 (2009). The VCAA and its implementing regulations are applicable to this appeal. The duty to notify under the VCAA requires VA to notify the claimant and the claimant's representative, if any, of the information and medical or lay evidence that is necessary to substantiate the claim. When VA receives a complete or substantially complete application, it will notify the claimant of any information and medical or lay evidence that is necessary to substantiate the claim. VA will inform the claimant which information and evidence, if any, the claimant is to provide to VA and which information and evidence, if any, that VA will attempt to obtain on behalf of the claimant. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2009). The VCAA and its implementing regulations provide that VA will assist a claimant in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate a claim. Under these provisions, VA is required to obtain service medical records and relevant VA healthcare records and must make reasonable efforts to help the veteran obtain other relevant medical records. The duty to assist also requires VA to provide the claimant with a medical examination or a medical opinion when such an examination or opinion is necessary to make a decision on a claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(d) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R § 3.159 (2009). The Court has mandated that VA ensure strict compliance with the provisions of the VCAA. Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. at 183 (2002). During the pendency of this appeal, on March 3, 2006, the Court issued a decision in the consolidated appeal of Dingess/Hartman v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006), which held that the VCAA notice requirements of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b) apply to all five elements of a service connection claim. Those five elements include: 1) veteran status; 2) existence of a disability; 3) a connection between the veteran's service and the disability; 4) degree of disability; and 5) effective date of the disability. The Court held that upon receipt of an application for a service-connection claim, 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b) require VA to review the information and the evidence presented with the claim and to provide the claimant with notice of what information and evidence not previously provided, if any, will assist in substantiating or is necessary to substantiate the elements of the claim as reasonably contemplated by the application. Dingess/Hartman at 488. Additionally, this notice must include notice that a disability rating and an effective date for the award of benefits will be assigned if service connection is awarded. Id. In an October 2006 letter, the RO provided the Veteran with notice of the evidence required to substantiate his claim. The Veteran was advised what evidence he should provide in support of his claim and what evidence VA would obtain on his behalf. The notice was provided prior to the rating decision on appeal, in compliance with the timing requirements set forth in Pelegrini. The RO made reasonable efforts to assist the Veteran in the development of his claim. The relevant records, including service treatment records and post-service medical records identified by the Veteran, have been obtained and associated with the claims file. The Veteran has not identified any relevant records that remain outstanding. The Board finds that all necessary development and notification has been accomplished, and therefore appellate review may proceed without prejudice to the appellant. See Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384 (1993). II. Analysis of Claim Applicable law provides that service connection will be granted if it is shown that the veteran suffers from disability resulting from an injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, in active service. 38 U.S.C.A. §1110. That an injury occurred in service alone is not enough; there must be chronic disability resulting from that injury. If there is no showing of a resulting chronic condition during service, then a showing of continuity of symptomatology after service is required to support a finding of chronicity. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Generally, to prevail on a claim of service connection on the merits, there must be medical evidence of (1) current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disease or injury. Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247 (1999). In determining whether service connection is warranted for a disability, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b) (West 2002); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). The Veteran claims entitlement to service connection for detached retinas. He alleges that detached retinas were caused by a head injury in service. The Veteran had active duty service from March 1970 to March 1974. Service treatment records reflect that the Veteran was seen in sick call in October 1973 with a complaint of a forehead laceration. Records show that the laceration was sutured and cleaned. The report of the April 1973 separation examination noted normal clinical evaluation of the head and face. A report of a March 2005 VA examination noted, in relevant part, that the Veteran had a substantial scar secondary to the suturing of his left eyelid. The report indicated that the scar did not cause any abnormality of vision. The Board notes that service connection is currently in effect for the Veteran's left eyelid scar. VA optometry records show that the Veteran was seen for an eye examination in August 2005. Assessments included mild dermatochalasis and presbyopia and myopia. A report of a September 2006 eye examination reflects that a VA optometrist noted assessments of mild dermatochalasis, each eye, and presbyopia. The Veteran had a VA examination in November 2006. The Veteran's complaints included movements of something in the very far peripheral visual field in both the right and left side. The Veteran reported episodes where images were separated or crossed. The VA examiner reviewed the claims file. The examiner noted that the Veteran lacerated his left brow during service. The examiner noted that the Veteran left service seeing well and needing no correction. After separation from service, he had no serious problems with his eyes, other than needing glasses for best vision. The examination report indicated that, two years prior, the Veteran went to the VA because he needed new glasses. At that time, something was found in the retina which was bothersome to the examiner. It had something to do with detachment or possibility of a detachment or something of that nature. The examiner's assessment included: 1) macular degeneration, atypical, bilateral; 2) diplopia, probably secondary to intermittent exotropia, but possibly also secondary to eccentric fixation with unusual retinal correspondence; and 3) scar, left eyebrow, small, not noticeable. The examiner stated that the Veteran does not have, nor had he had, a retinal detachment caused by or a result of his head trauma that produced the scar in the lateral part of his left brow. The VA examiner also indicated that the trauma to the Veteran's left brow did not cause an eye problem. The examiner further stated that the Veteran has an atypical macular degeneration which is not caused by, or the result of service. The examiner stated that the Veteran's macular changes are quite atypical of any common and most rare macular degeneration processes. The examiner stated that there is no reason to suspect that the changes are traumatic. The Board concludes that service connection for detached retinas is not warranted. The record does not contain a current diagnosis of detached retinas. In the absence of proof of a present disability, there can be no valid claim for service connection. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). The record reflects a current diagnosis of macular degeneration; however, there is no competent medical evidence linking macular degeneration to any incident of service, including the eye laceration sustained during service. In reaching this determination, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. However, as there is a preponderance of the evidence against the claim, it must be denied. ORDER Service connection for detached retinas is denied. ____________________________________________ V. L. JORDAN Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs