Citation Nr: 18148276 Decision Date: 11/08/18 Archive Date: 11/07/18 DOCKET NO. 16-36 325 DATE: November 8, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral vitreous floaters is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for residuals of bilateral eye keratitis is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The most probative evidence indicates that the Veteran’s current bilateral vitreous floaters is not related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for establishing entitlement to service connection for bilateral vitreous floaters have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1973 to June 1980 and from March 1985 to March 1996. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2015 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which denied service connection for bilateral vitreous floaters. In addition, a July 2014 rating decision denied service connection for right and left eye keratitis. The Veteran filed a timely notice of disagreement with that decision in August 2014. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral vitreous floaters Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Generally, to prove service connection, there must be competent, credible evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, and (3) a nexus, or link, between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. See, e.g., Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Pond v. West, 12 Vet. App. 341 (1999). The Veteran contends that his bilateral vitreous floaters are related to his military service. In this regard, the Veteran testified at his regional office hearing in September 2017 that his floaters began after being treated for bacterial keratitis while in service. As an initial matter, the Board notes that the Veteran was diagnosed with bilateral vitreous floaters of the eyes during the September 2015 VA examination. Thus, the first criterion for establishing service connection, a current disability, has been met. Thus, the question becomes whether this condition is related to service. Upon review of the record, the Board finds that the most probative evidence is against the claim. While the Veteran’s service treatment records do reflect treatment for bacterial keratitis, they do not reflect complaints of bilateral vitreous floaters. Thus, competent medical evidence linking the current condition to service is needed to support the claim. On this question, there are opinions from VA examiners and an opinion from his private optometrist. In May 2014, the VA examiner opined that the in-service keratitis resolved, and that the Veteran’s floaters were due to aging. The September 2015 examiner opined that the floaters are most likely due to the bilateral posterior vitreous detachments that occurred sometime around 2013. Both examiners reviewed the claims file and considered the in-service keratitis. However, both examiners found that the current floaters are unrelated to the in-service keratitis. The October 2014 letter from his private optometrist, received after the October 2014 examination, indicates the Veteran was seen in April 2014 and suffered from a bilateral posterior vitreal detachment. The optometrist indicated the Veteran may or may not notice floaters. In August 2015, an additional report was received from the optometrist. At that time, the optometrist stated he was unable to verify or not that the Veteran’s posterior vitreal detachment occurred during his time in the military. He stated that the condition is very common and affects people of all ages. He stated it would be reasonable that the Veteran’s posterior vitreal detachment could have occurred during service but due to the fact that he started examining him in 2014, he was not able to localize the time frame. In weighing the opinions of record, greatest weight is given to the opinion of the September 2015 VA examiner. The VA examiner’s opinion was based on examination of the Veteran, the Veteran’s reported history, and a review of the evidence of record. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 302-04 (2008). This opinion is consistent with the 2014 examiner’s opinion. Conversely, the opinion from the private optometrist was speculative, noting that while it was possible the condition began in service, he could not determine the date of onset. See Bloom v. West, 12 Vet. App. 185, 187 (1999) (noting that the use of the term “could” without other rationale or supporting data, is speculative); see also Polovick v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 48, 54 (2009) (holding doctor's statement that veteran's brain tumor “may well be” connected to service was speculative). As such, the opinion from the private optometrist is afforded little, if any, probative weight. To the extent the Veteran and his wife believe that his current bilateral vitreous floaters are related to service, as lay persons they have not shown that they have specialized training sufficient to render such an opinion. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (noting general competence to testify as to symptoms but not to provide medical diagnosis). In this regard, the diagnosis and etiology of an eye condition is a matter requiring medical expertise to determine. Accordingly, their opinion as to the diagnosis or etiology of his eye condition is not competent medical evidence. The Board finds the opinions of the VA examiners to be significantly more probative than the lay assertions. In sum, the most probative evidence indicates that the Veteran’s currently diagnosed bilateral vitreous floaters are not related to his military service. Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim and service connection is denied. In reaching the above conclusions, the Board has considered the benefit of the doubt doctrine. However, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claims, that doctrine is not for application and service connection must be denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55-57 (1990). REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of bilateral eye keratitis is remanded. A July 2014 rating decision denied service connection for right and left eye keratitis. The Veteran submitted correspondence he labeled as a notice of disagreement (NOD) with that decision in August 2014. However, the RO has not addressed this NOD or issued a statement of the case on this issue. Such should be accomplished on remand. Manlincon v. West, 12. Vet. App. 238, 240-41 (1999). After the RO has issued the statement of the case, the claim should be returned to the Board only if the Veteran perfects the appeal in a timely manner. See Smallwood v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 93, 97 (1997). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Send the Veteran and his representative a statement of the case that addresses the issue of entitlement to service connection for residuals of keratitis. This issue should only be returned to the Board if the Veteran perfects the appeal in a timely manner. K. A. BANFIELD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Asare, Associate Counsel