Citation Nr: 1323667	
Decision Date: 07/24/13    Archive Date: 08/01/13

DOCKET NO.  12-18 236	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Louis, Missouri


THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral blindness, to include as secondary to in-service concussion blast, and as secondary to generalized anxiety with dementia secondary to traumatic brain injury as a result of that concussion blast injury.


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	Disabled American Veterans


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

C. Lawson, Counsel



INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from October 1943 to November 1945.

This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2011 rating decision by a Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).  The Board reopened the claim and remanded the matter to the RO for further development in December 2012.

Please note this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2012).  38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2002).

The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC.  VA will notify the appellant if further action is required.


REMAND

The Veteran suffered a concussion blast injury in service, and service connection is now in effect for generalized anxiety with dementia secondary to traumatic brain injury as a result of that concussion blast injury.  

On VA examination in June 2010, the Veteran reported that he lost vision in his left eye about 2 years prior, and in his right eye about 1 year prior.  He had a history of multiple cerebrovascular accidents affecting vision, and had had surgery for cataracts years ago.  On examination, he had no light perception in his right eye, due to optic atrophy from anterior ischemic optic neuropathy or from central retinal vein occlusion.  It was likely partially caused by hypertension.  His left eye had decreased vision from macular changes and resulting from cerebrovascular accident.  The left eye had a corneal opacity which was not likely contributing to vision impairment at that time.  

In June 2013, a VA examiner noted that over time, the Veteran had suffered from residuals of multiple cerebrovascular accidents, hypertension, and dementia.  She stated that these stand as clear and unmistakable contributors to the Veteran's state of legal blindness secondary to anterior and posterior eye compartment conditions as well as neurovascular impairment.  The examiner's reference to dementia as a contributor to the Veteran's blindness is significant since dementia is part of his service-connected disability.  However, later in the opinion the examiner states that the blindness is due to the natural aging process.  

Although the Board regrets further delay, under the above circumstances clarification is necessary to allow for fully informed appellate review.

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

(Please note, this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2012).  Expedited handling is requested.)

1.  The RO should forward the claims folder to the June 2013 VA examiner.  The examiner is asked to review the claims file, to include the service treatment records, July 2010 VA examination report, and June 2013 VA examination report.  The examiner should be asked to clarify her statement regarding dementia as a contributor to the Veteran's blindness, and to specifically indicate whether the Veteran's blindness is causally related to the service-connected disability (which includes dementia).   

2.  The RO should then readjudicate the Veteran's pending claim in light of any additional evidence added to the record.  The Veteran and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and given the opportunity to respond thereto.  The case should then be returned to the Board for appellate review.

The appellant 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. 2012).



_________________________________________________
ALAN S. PEEVY
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) (2012).