Citation Nr: 1815545	
Decision Date: 03/14/18    Archive Date: 03/23/18

DOCKET NO.  14-04 995	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida


THE ISSUE

Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for service-connected pinguecula of the bilateral eye, previously rated as hyperemia conjunctiva. 


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States


WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

The Veteran


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

L. Baskerville, Counsel 

INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from October 1952 to October 1956.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2012 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. 

In January 2018, the Veteran testified at a travel Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge.  A copy of the transcript has been associated with the Veteran's electronic claims folder. 

This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2017).  38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2) (2012).

The appeal is REMANDED to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ).  VA will notify the appellant if further action is required.


REMAND

The Veteran has contended that his service-connected eye disability has worsened since his last VA examination.  Specifically, he stated that he is unable to stay on the computer or watch television as much and he has difficulty seeing while driving.  The Veteran was last afforded a VA examination in January 2012.  As there is evidence that the Veteran's eye disability may have worsened since the last examination, the Board finds that a remand for a VA examination is necessary to assess the Veteran's current severity.  See Weggenmann v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 281 (1993); see also Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997) (a Veteran is entitled to a new examination where there is evidence that the condition may have worsened since the last examination).

There is also evidence that the Veteran is treated for his eye disability by private providers (Monnett Eye and Optical Center and Florida Eye Associates).  On remand, the Veteran should complete a VA Form 21-4142, Authorization and Consent to Release Information to permit the RO to obtain his records. 

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

(Please note, this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c).  Expedited handling is requested.)

1.  Contact the Veteran and request that he provide or authorize the release of any private treatment records from Monnett Eye and Optical Center and Florida Eye Associates, as well as any other records, not already of record, that are relevant to his claim.  

If, after making reasonable efforts to obtain non-VA records the AOJ is unable to secure same, the AOJ must notify the Veteran and (a) identify the specific records the AOJ is unable to obtain; (b) briefly explain the efforts that the AOJ made to obtain those records; (c) describe any further action to be taken by the AOJ with respect to the claim; and (d) inform the Veteran that he is ultimately responsible for providing the evidence.  

2.  Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA eye examination with the appropriate medical professional to determine the current severity and manifestations of his pinguecula of both eyes.  

The examiner's is asked to opine as to what symptoms are attributable to the Veteran's service-connected pinguecula and which are attributable to any non-service-connected disability.  

3.  After the development requested above has been completed to the extent possible, readjudicate the claim on appeal.  If any benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a Supplemental Statement of the Case.

The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter the Board has remanded.  Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999).

This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment.  The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner.  See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112 (2012).



_________________________________________________
MICHAEL A. PAPPAS
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals

Under 38 U.S.C. § 7252 (2012), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.  This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal.  38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2017).