Citation Nr: 20008344 Decision Date: 01/31/20 Archive Date: 01/31/20 DOCKET NO. 09-46 466 DATE: January 31, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disability, to include glaucoma. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1964 to February 1966. This appeal is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from an August 2007 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Los Angeles, California. In January 2016, the Veteran testified during a Board hearing in Washington, DC, before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript is included in the claims file. The Veteran’s appeal was initially before the Board in June 2014, when it was remanded with instruction to obtain records from the Social Security Administration and to assist in obtaining private medical records. Such development was conducted, and in April 2016 the Board remanded again with instruction to provide a VA examination. The Veteran underwent an examination in June 2016. In November 2016 the Board requested an opinion from an expert at the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), which was provided in January 2017. Based on additional evidence submitted, in November 2017 the Board requested a clarification VHA opinion which was provided in March 2018. Based on these opinions, the Board denied the Veteran’s claim in July 2018. He appealed the denial to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court), which vacated the denial in a September 2019 order granting a joint motion for remand (JMR). The issue is therefore again before the Board. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disability, to include glaucoma The JMR instructs that the January 2017 and March 2018 VHA opinions were inadequate in that they did not adequately address documented in-service eye treatment used equivocal language. Specifically, the JMR notes that neither the author of the VHA opinions nor the May 2016 VA examiner included in their rationales any discussion of whether the Veteran’s current glaucoma was related to documented August 1965 eye treatment or use of steroid eye drops in service. The Board thus finds that remand is necessary to provide the Veteran with a new VA examination and opinion, as instructed in the JMR. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain and associate with the claims file any additional medical evidence that may have come into existence but has not been associated with the record. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for his bilateral eyes. The claims file must be reviewed by the examiner. Following a review of the claims file and any clinical examination results, the examiner should offer an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e. 50 percent probability or more) that his glaucoma is related to service. In so doing, the examiner must specifically address whether the Veteran’s current glaucoma was related to documented August 1965 eye treatment or use of steroid eye drops in service. All opinions are to be accompanied by a rationale consistent with the evidence of record. A discussion of the pertinent evidence, relevant medical treatises, and generally accepted medical principles is requested. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to speculation, he or she shall provide complete explanations stating why this is so. In so doing, the examiner shall explain whether any inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, or that he or she has exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to that particular question. 3. After completing the above, and any other development deemed necessary, readjudicate the appeal. If any benefit sought remains denied, provide an additional supplemental statement of the case to the Veteran and his representative, and return the appeal to the Board. JONATHAN B. KRAMER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Gallagher, Counsel 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.