Citation Nr: 18155955
Decision Date: 12/06/18	Archive Date: 12/06/18

DOCKET NO. 16-54 977
DATE:	December 6, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to service connection for an eye disability, claimed as photophobia, is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty from February 1970 to August 1974.
This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a November 2015 rating decision. 
Entitlement to service connection for an eye disability, claimed as photophobia, is remanded.
The Board cannot make a fully-informed decision on the issue of entitlement to service connection for an eye disability, claimed as photophobia, because no VA examiner has opined whether the Veteran’s eye disabilities are related to service.
The Veteran contends that he developed photophobia in service due to the glare of the sun off of the ocean while in the Navy, and that it has continued since service.  VA treatment records reflect that the Veteran has been diagnosed with glaucoma, and has reported being very photophobic.
The Veteran should be afforded a VA examination to determine whether he has an eye disability that was caused by or otherwise related to service. 
June 2015 VA treatment records reflect that the Veteran was treated outside the VA for his glaucoma.  A remand is required to allow VA to obtain authorization and request these private treatment records.
The matter is REMANDED for the following actions:
1. Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for any private treatment received for an eye disability.  Make two requests for the authorized records from any identified private treatment provider, unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile.
2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any eye disability, to include photophobia and glaucoma.  The examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including exposure to UV light while on active duty in the Navy.  
3. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated, the Veteran’s claim should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence.  If the claim remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). 
An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response.  Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order.

 
K. PARAKKAL
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	S. Owen, Associate Counsel