Citation Nr: 20005083 Decision Date: 01/23/20 Archive Date: 01/22/20 DOCKET NO. 14-16 258 DATE: January 23, 2020 REMANDED Service connection for a bilateral eye disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1973 to March 1976. This case comes before the Board on appeal from a December 2011 rating decision. The Veteran testified at a July 2014 Board hearing. The Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) who conducted that hearing is no longer employed by the Board. In November 2019, the Board asked the Veteran if he wanted another hearing before a VLJ who would decide his case. He did not respond to that letter. Service connection for a bilateral eye disability is remanded. Another remand is necessary to ensure substantial compliance with the Board’s remand directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). When last on appeal in December 2015, the Board ordered that a new medical opinion as to the etiology of the Veteran’s bilateral eye disability be obtained. The regional office (RO) attempted to schedule the Veteran for examinations twice—in January 2016 and February 2019. He did not report to either examination. Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.655, when an examination is deemed necessary to adjudicate the claim and a claimant fails to appear for an examination without good cause, the evidence will be rated on the evidence of record. In August 2019, the RO issued a supplemental statement of the case, which returned the claim to the Board’s jurisdiction, without obtaining a medical opinion, as the Veteran had failed to report for VA examinations. However, in the December 2015 remand, the Board did not find an examination necessary. Rather, the Board ordered only that a medical opinion be obtained and that an additional examination should be schedule if deemed necessary. As such, a medical opinion can be rendered based on the record without another examination. Thus, another remand is required to ensure that the December 2015 remand directives are fulfilled. Stegall, supra. The Board notes that in the December 2015 remand, the Board ordered that the November 2011 examiner give the medical opinion requested. However, the Board recognizes the passage of time may prevent this from occurring. If so, the Board finds that substantial compliance with prior remand directives will be met where a medical opinion is rendered by a clinician who has reviewed the entire claims file, and who is mindful of the relevant lay statements of record. Thus, for convenience of the examiner, the Board will again outline the relevant evidence below. The Veteran claims that his current bilateral eye disorder is related to service. Service treatment records (STRs) indicate that the Veteran sustained a bilateral eye injury in May 1975 when Drano splashed into his eyes. He experienced photophobia and tearing, examination revealed mild punctate epithelial changes in both eyes, his eyes were irrigated and patched, and a diagnosis of chemical burns to the eyes was provided. He was subsequently treated for continuing blurriness, burning, increased tearing, and photophobia in June 1975 and was prescribed Visine. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in November 2011. A diagnosis of bilateral cortical senile cataracts was noted. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s bilateral eye disorder is less likely than not related to service. There were no signs of residual damage or injury to the eyes from the acute chemical conjunctivitis in service. The slight decrease in visual acuity and photophobia were due to age-related cataracts in both eyes. These cataracts were not caused by the acute chemical conjunctivitis suffered in service. If the acute chemical injury had been severe enough to cause cataracts, the Veteran’s eye examinations in service after the injury would have shown other signs of eye injury, such as keratitis, corneal scarring, iritis, iris atrophy, and severe loss of vision. Such signs of injury were neither found in service nor during the November 2011 examination. At the July 2014 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he has continued to experience eye symptoms ever since his in-service eye injury. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an addendum opinion regarding the nature and etiology of any current eye disability. After a review of the entire claims file, the examiner should, for each diagnosed eye disorder, opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not that the eye disorder is related to service. (Continued on the next page)   In formulating the above opinion, the examiner shall specifically acknowledge and comment on all eye disabilities diagnosed since October 2010, all instances of treatment for eye problems in the Veteran’s STRs, and his reports of continuing eye symptoms in the years since service. A complete rationale for any opinion reached should be provided. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to speculation, the examiner should provide an explanation as to why this is so and note what, if any, additional evidence would permit such an opinion to be made. C. CRAWFORD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. George The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.