Citation Nr: 18150659 Decision Date: 11/15/18 Archive Date: 11/15/18 DOCKET NO. 18-10 779 DATE: November 15, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for open angle glaucoma is denied. FINDING OF FACT There was no in-service event, injury, or disease which could be related to the Veteran’s current open angle glaucoma. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for open angle glaucoma have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1131, 5107 (2017); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1954 to December 1957. This appeal is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a July 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Houston, Texas. As an initial matter, the Board notes that new claims that are based on distinctly and differently diagnosed diseases or injuries than a previously denied claim must be considered independently, despite similar symptoms. Therefore, new and material evidence is not required in such cases. See Boggs v. Peake, 520 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (finding sensorineural hearing loss was distinct from conductive hearing loss). In Velez v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 199 (2009), the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) looked to three factors to distinguish a new claim from a petition to reopen: 1) what symptoms were previously used in describing the prior claim, 2) what the medical evidence showed at the time of the prior denials, and 3) how broadly the RO adjudicated the scope of the prior claim. The Veteran previously sought service connection for a vision problem in an October 1998 claim, though he did not specify what symptoms he was experiencing in connection with his claimed vision problem, nor did he provide any medical records documenting treatment for a vision problem. An April 1999 rating decision denied the claim for a vision problem, stating that there was no evidence of an in-service injury or disease. In June 2018, the Veteran submitted a new claim for service connection for open angle glaucoma, along with a May 2015 private disability benefits questionnaire for eye conditions, in which the Veteran was diagnosed with open angle glaucoma. The prior April 1999 rating decision did not discuss the Veteran’s open angle glaucoma, nor were any specific eye symptoms reported with respect to the prior claim. Although the scope of the prior claim was broad, a “vision problem”, the other two factors weigh in favor of finding the claim for open angle glaucoma to be a new claim. Hence, new and material evidence is not required with regard to the current claim on appeal. See Boggs v. Peake, 520 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2008); cf. Velez v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 199 (2009). Entitlement to service connection for open angle glaucoma The Veteran contends that his current open angle glaucoma is related to his service. For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that service connection is not warranted. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. “To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a veteran must show: ‘(1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service’—the so-called ‘nexus’ requirement.” Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The Veteran has a current diagnosis for open angle glaucoma. As noted above, the May 2015 disability benefits questionnaire provided a diagnosis of open angle glaucoma, and the Veteran’s VA treatment records document that he has been receiving ongoing treatment for his open angle glaucoma. Thus, the first element of service connection has been met. The Veteran has asserted that his open angle glaucoma is related to injuries sustained in service. In his February 2018 substantive appeal, the Veteran stated that he was injured while in service by a baseball to the forehead that caused swelling in both eyes, and that he has had problems with his eyes ever since that incident. Additionally, in a July 2015 statement, the Veteran noted that he played football, basketball, baseball, softball, and racquetball in service, and frequently experienced hits and bruises in all of those activities, including injuries to his head. Service treatment records note an August 1956 basketball injury to the Veteran’s ankle, and a January 1958 VA orthopedic examination noted that the Veteran reported additional injuries while playing football and basketball in Germany, but do not appear to document treatment for a baseball injury in service, or any other sports injuries involving the Veteran’s head. Additionally, the Veteran’s service treatment records do not appear to document any treatment for the Veteran’s eyes in service, and the Veteran’s separation examination indicated that the Veteran’s eyes were normal at separation. The Board finds that the evidence weighs against a finding that the Veteran’s open angle glaucoma is related to service. Specifically, the only evidence of an in-service sports-related head injury consists of the Veteran’s statements decades after the fact, and is there no other indication that the Veteran’s current symptoms are otherwise related to service. The Veteran’s service treatment records show no indication of any head injury or treatment of the Veteran’s eyes in service, and the Board finds this absence more probative that the Veteran’s current statements regarding his claimed injuries in service. Thus, while the Veteran believes his open angle glaucoma is related to a head injury in service, the Board concludes that the preponderance of the evidence weighs against a finding that the claimed in-service head injury occurred. It follows that the evidence weighs against a finding that the Veteran’s open angle glaucoma is related to service, and service connection is therefore denied. J. GALLAGHER Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD B. Reed, Associate Counsel