Citation Nr: 20046022 Decision Date: 07/09/20 Archive Date: 07/09/20 DOCKET NO. 09-50 497 DATE: July 9, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a left eye disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran’s left eye disability began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a left eye disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service in the United States Army from October 1974 to April 1983 and in January 1991, with additional service in the United States Army Reserves. This matter is on appeal from a November 2008 rating decision. In January 2013 and May 2016, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction issued formal findings of unavailability regarding the service medical records from April 1983 to January 1991 and from January 1991 to October 1994. Entitlement to service connection for a left eye disability. In August 2017, the Veteran testified that he was struck in the left by a tree limb during active service. Since sustaining the injury, his vision changed and his eye watered more frequently. The Veteran contends that he should be awarded service connection for his left eye disability. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has a current diagnosis of left eye cataract and evidence shows that he was struck in the eye by a tree limb during active service, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran’s left eye disability began during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. May 2008 VA treatment records indicate that the Veteran’s eyes were clear. In 2010, the Veteran underwent a diabetic eye examination and no visual changes were present. In September 2014, the Veteran’s eyes were evaluated as normal. Outpatient treatment records show that he had a cataract in his left eye. In September 2018, the Veteran was afforded a VA eye conditions examination. The VA examiner did not diagnosis an eye disability and commented that there were no sequelae from the Veteran’s 1979 eye injury. The VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s claimed left eye disability was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, illness. He elaborated that while the Veteran sustained an eye injury during active service, there was no documentation of continued care or treatment since service. The VA examiner added that refractive error is not a result of an eye injury. In November 2019, the Veteran underwent another VA eye examination. The VA examiner diagnosed left eye cataract and pseudophakia of the right eye. He opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s left eye disability is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including being struck in the eye by a tree limb in service. The VA examiner explained that there was no ocular pathology related to trauma. There are no positive medical opinions of record. The only evidence in favor of the Veteran’s claim are his own lay statements. The Board finds the Veteran competent and credible to describe a change in vision and watery eyes after being struck by a tree limb during active service. However, the Board does not find the Veteran competent to relate his current eye disability to his in-service injury. The Veteran has cataracts. The etiological cause of cataracts is a medically complex issue that requires specialized knowledge. The Veteran has not been shown to have the requisite expertise to provide a nexus between cataracts and his in-service eye trauma. The examiners’ opinions are probative because they are based on an accurate medical history, examinations of the Veteran, and consideration of his lay statements, and provide explanations that contain clear conclusions and supporting data. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). Therefore, the Board places more probative weight on the negative medical opinions of record. Based on the forgoing, the preponderance of evidence is against the Veteran’s   claim. The claim of entitlement to service connection for a left eye disability is denied. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. DAVID L. WIGHT Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R.R. Watkins, 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.