Citation Nr: 18140064 Decision Date: 10/02/18 Archive Date: 10/02/18 DOCKET NO. 15-09 789 DATE: October 2, 2018 ORDER The application to reopen the claim for service connection for a right eye disorder is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right eye disorder is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The last final (unappealed) disallowance of the Veteran’s claim for service connection for a right eye disorder was by Board decision in April 2000. The Board’s denial of the claim was based upon a lack of evidence of a current eye disability at that time. 2. Evidence received since the April 2000 denial relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim for service connection for a right eye disorder, specifically, the presence of a current right eye disability. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The April 2000 Board decision is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(b) (1991); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100 (1999). 2. The evidence added to the record since April 2000 is new and material; the claim for service connection for a right eye disorder is reopened. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from June 1970 to June 1974 and from December 1987 to September 1994, with additional periods of active and inactive service in the U.S. Naval Reserve and California Army National Guard. 1. The application to reopen the claim for service connection for a right eye disorder Once a decision denying service connection becomes final, new and material evidence is required to reopen the claim which was previously denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 provides that “if new and material evidence is presented or secured with respect to a claim which has been disallowed, the Secretary shall reopen the claim and review the former disposition of the claim.” “New” evidence is existing evidence not previously submitted to agency decision makers. “Material” evidence is existing evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. “New and material evidence” can neither be cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial of the claim sought to be reopened, and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) (2018). The language of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) is a low threshold, and the phrase “raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim” is “enabling rather than precluding reopening.” Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 11 (2010). The record reflects that the Veteran was denied service connection for a right eye disability in an April 2000 decision from the Board based on findings he manifested acute and transitory complaints in service that resolved without residual disability, and that he manifested an astigmatism, which is not a disability. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(c); see also April 2000 Board Decision. The Board finds the Veteran has submitted additional medical and lay evidence that relates to a reason his claim was previously denied. Specifically, the Veteran provided credible testimony to in-service injury, including a concussion, and symptoms of decreasing vision since separation. See June 2018 Hearing Transcript. The record also contains VA medical records dated July 2015 showing he was diagnosed with mild, early cataracts. See July 2015 VA Medical Record. For the purpose of establishing whether new and material evidence has been submitted, the credibility of evidence is presumed unless the evidence is inherently incredible or consists of statements that are beyond the competence of the person or persons making them. See Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1992); Meyer v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 425, 429 (1996); King v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 19, 21 (1993). The Veteran has submitted new medical evidence of a current right eye disability which relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. New and material evidence to reopen the service-connection claim for right eye disability has been received and the claim is reopened. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7103, 7104; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156, 20.1100. REASONS FOR REMAND 2. Entitlement to service connection for a right eye disorder is remanded. Although the Board regrets the additional delay, a remand is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran’s claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2018). VA must provide a VA medical examination when there is: (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability, and (2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service or establishing certain diseases manifesting during an applicable presumptive period for which the claimant qualifies, and (3) an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability may be associated with service or with another service-connected disability, but (4) insufficient competent medical evidence on file for the Secretary to make a decision on the claim. McClendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet App. 79, 81 (2006). Based on the Veteran’s credible testimony and the evidence of current right eye disability, the Board finds that an additional VA examination is appropriate and necessary for the purposes of a service connection determination. Further, the Veteran testified he receives treatment from private medical providers for his claimed right eye disability and the Board finds he should be requested to provide authorization for the release of these records. See June 2018 Hearing Transcript. All efforts to obtain these records must be documented in the file. The AOJ should make two attempts to obtain these records once authorization is obtained, unless the first attempt reveals that further attempts would be futile. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran to obtain consent and authorization to release medical information from any private medical provider with knowledge of his claimed right eye disability. 2. The AOJ should secure any outstanding, relevant VA medical records. 3. Obtain an examination and opinion from a qualified VA examiner –The examiner is asked to provide the following opinions: a. Whether it is at least as likely as not the Veteran manifests a right eye disability, including cataract of the right eye, that was the result of in-service disease or injury. The examiner should review the record and specifically address service treatment findings for all of the periods of active duty and discuss the Veteran’s June 2018 testimony and the December 1994 VA examination findings regarding his right eye. b. Whether it is at least as likely as not the Veteran manifests a right eye disability, including cataract of the right eye, that was caused by systemic steroid use for service-connected nasal disability. The examiner should review the record and specifically address the July 2006 narrative from Dr. K.D. (Continued on the next page)   The examiner must provide the rationale for all proffered opinions. If the examiner is unable to provide any required opinion, he or she should explain why. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation as to why this is so. If the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, the examiner should identify the additional information that is needed. A. S. CARACCIOLO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Trickey, Jonathan