Citation Nr: 18156117 Decision Date: 12/11/18 Archive Date: 12/07/18 DOCKET NO. 11-25 190 DATE: December 11, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an eye disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1969 to July 1973 and from November 1973 to September 1989. Entitlement to service connection for an eye disability. Unfortunately, there has not been substantial compliance with the Board’s previous remand directives regarding the issue of entitlement to service connection for an eye disability. For reasons explained below, another remand is required. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). In the November 2017 remand, the Board noted that in the June 2017 VA opinion the examiner opined that the Veteran’s dry eye syndrome was less likely than not due to service as the February 2016 VA examination did not show dry eye syndrome. However, the Board explained that during the appeal period VA treatment records show that the Veteran had a diagnosis of dry eye syndrome. See July 2015 VA treatment record; see also VA treatment records dated in July 2013 and July 2014. The Board reiterated that the requirement that a current disability exist is satisfied if the claimant had a disability at the time his claim for VA disability compensation was filed or during the pendency of the claim. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). Thus, the Board found that the June 2017 VA opinion did not comply with the Board’s May 2017 remand instructions as the examiner did not consider evidence during the appeal period that shows a diagnosis of dry eye syndrome. In the instructions in the November 2017 remand, the Board specifically requested that for each eye disability other than cataracts, right eye strabismic amblyopia, and refractive error, that was diagnosed on the examination or at any time during the appeal period, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or more) that it was incurred during service. The Board further requested that the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) review the medical opinion to ensure that all remand directives were accomplished and to return the case to the examiner for completion of all questions not sufficienctly answered. While the Veteran was afforded a new VA examination in January 2018, the examiner also did not adequately address the Board’s question as to whether the Veteran’s dry eye syndrome was related to service. The January 2018 VA examiner opined that the Veteran did not show at the time of the examination signs of dry eye syndrome, as did the June 2017 VA examiner. The January 2018 VA examiner therefore also opined that the Veteran does not have any eye disability, including one diagnosed during the appeal period, that at least as likely as not was incurred during service. The Board has no choice but to remand the issue for an addendum opinion in order for the examiner to address whether the Veteran’s dry eye syndrome diagnosed throughout the appeal period is related to service. Notably, VA treatment records dated in August 2016, which were printed in December 2017, show that the Veteran has been diagnosed with dry eye syndrome. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion from the examiner who conducted the January 2018 VA eye examination. If this examiner is unavailable, another appropriate examiner should render the opinion. After reviewing the claims file the examiner must: Accept as true that during the appeal period the Veteran has had a diagnosis of dry eye syndrome and opine whether the Veteran’s dry eye syndrome was at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or more) incurred during service. The examiner is hereby advised that VA treatment records throughout the appeal period show a diagnosis of dry eye syndrome. See VA treatment records dated in July 2013, July 2014, July 2015, and August 2016. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history and that such reports must be acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. Also, a clear explanation for all opinions would be helpful, and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. If the examiner is unable to provide an opinion, he or she should explain why. 2. Afterwards, the AOJ must review the medical opinion obtained above to ensure that the remand directives have been accomplished, including as to (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) the requested opinion regarding the etiology of dry eye syndrome diagnosed during the appeal period. If all questions posed are not answered or sufficiently answered, the case should be returned to the examiner for completion of the inquiry. THERESA M. CATINO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Mac, Counsel