Citation Nr: 20039937 Decision Date: 06/11/20 Archive Date: 06/11/20 DOCKET NO. 16-14 609 DATE: June 11, 2020 ORDER Service connection for an eye condition is denied.   FINDING OF FACT An eye condition did not begin during service and is not related to any event or injury during service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for an eye condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from March 1965 to February 1967. The case is on appeal from a June 2015 rating decision. In an October 2018 decision, the Board denied a compensable rating for service-connected hearing loss. The Board also reopened a previously denied claim of service connection for an eye condition and remanded the claim for additional development. The Board has limited the discussion below to the relevant evidence required to support its finding of fact and conclusion of law, as well as to the specific contentions regarding the case as raised directly by the Veteran and those reasonably raised by the record. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Robinson v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 545, 552 (2008). Service connection for an eye condition. The Veteran contends that he has an eye condition due to welding and using a cutting torch, plus exposure to exhaust and back firing from mechanic work during service. See November 2015 notice of disagreement (NOD); March 2016 VA Form 9. Alternatively, he asserts that a brain concussion during service could have caused a current eye condition. See September 2018 appellate brief. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. A veteran seeking compensation under these provisions must establish three elements: “(1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service.” Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The Board concludes that the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that a current eye condition began during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. A VA examiner in July 2019 confirmed a diagnosis of intraocular lens; age-related nuclear cataract, left eye; and dry eye syndrome of bilateral lacrimal glands. Other medical records also show past diagnoses of senile cataracts; senile ptosis; dermatochalasis; and trichiasis. See June 2009, May 2011, June 2013, July 2014, and January 2015 VA medical records. He underwent entropion repair of the left lower lid in September 2014. As such, a current diagnosis is established. His service personnel records (SPRs) show that he was a wheeled vehicle mechanic during service. The Board finds this to be consistent with his assertions of exposure to vehicle exhaust, welding and torch use from mechanic work. To this extent, an in-service event is established. The service treatment records (STRs) document his assertion that he had symptoms, such as headaches and dizziness, related to a pre-service head injury. The STRs do not indicate a head injury during service. However, he detailed in a March 2009 statement that he was hit in the head during combat training, and such an injury appears consistent with the circumstances of his service. Hence, this event may be taken as true. The STRs also show that this event did not prompt him to seek treatment. To the contrary, he only mentioned the pre-service head injury throughout the treatment for his complaints. In either event, he did not complain of his eyes during such treatment. Hence, it can be inferred that the in-service head injury, if it did occur, was not severe enough to result in treatment for eye complaints. Regardless of any in-service events, the probative evidence shows that his current condition is unrelated to service. The July 2019 VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s eye conditions were less likely than not related to service as they were part of the normal aging process. The examiner’s opinion is probative, because it is based on an accurate medical history and provides an explanation, albeit brief, that is clear and cogent. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). The VA examiner’s opinion shows why, as a medical matter, the Veteran’s current eye conditions are unlikely to be related to any event of his service. The Veteran believes his eye conditions are related to service. He wrote in a November 2008 statement that his eyes had given him trouble from the exhaust of vehicles he worked on during service. It is not clear if he was asserting in this statement that his eyes continued to trouble him on an ongoing basis after service or, alternatively, whether the eye trouble occurred only during service. To this end, his October 1966 service separation examination was negative/normal in all relevant respects, and the Veteran denied any eye trouble. Hence, there is affirmative evidence that his eyes had not been continuously troubling him at that time. This leads to an inference that any eye trouble he experienced during service had ended by the time he separated from service. This weighs against a finding that he had continuing eye complaints after service. In either event, the Veteran in this case is not competent to provide a nexus opinion regarding this issue. The issue is medically complex, as it requires knowledge of optometry/ophthalmology, plus the risk factors for and development of eye disease. It is outside the competence of the Veteran in this case because the record does not show that he has the medical training or credentials to make such a determination. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Kahana v. Shinseki, 24. Vet. App. 428 (2011); Savage v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 488, 497 (1997) (medical expertise is required to relate the Veteran’s present arthritis etiologically to his post-service symptoms). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the VA examiner’s opinion. The Board is mindful that the available VA medical records refer to further evaluations by private (non-VA) treatment providers whose medical records are not in the file. See August 2013, June 2015, July 2015 administrative entries. The Board finds for two reasons that a remand is not needed to obtain these records. First, there is no indication that these private records might pertain to the nexus question, which is the critical question of material fact at issue here. The Veteran did not identify these private records as potentially relevant and/or authorize VA to obtain the records after having been asked to do so. Second, to the extent the private records pertain to the diagnosis and treatment of his condition, the available VA medical records contain optometry records evaluating his conditions and documenting his treatment. (Continued on the next page)   There appears to be no reasonable possibility that a remand to obtain the private records would substantiate the claim. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(d); Sullivan v. McDonald, 815 F.3d 786, 792 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In sum, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim and the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not applicable. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Therefore, service connection for an eye condition is not warranted. RYAN T. KESSEL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Bosely, 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.