Citation Nr: 20036775 Decision Date: 05/28/20 Archive Date: 05/28/20 DOCKET NO. 16-08 252 DATE: May 28, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an eye condition, claimed as secondary to service-connected hepatitis C, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s eye condition, to include glaucoma, is not proximately due to nor aggravated beyond its natural progression by his service-connected hepatitis C. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for an eye condition are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from September 1974 to August 1976. This matter is on appeal from a February 2016 decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In August 2019, a videoconference hearing was held before the undersigned. A transcript of the hearing is in the record. The case was previously before the Board in November 2019 when it was remanded with an inextricably intertwined claim for service connection for hepatitis C, which has since been granted. Eye Condition The Veteran contends that his eye condition is related to his service-connected hepatitis C. Because the Veteran has not raised, and the record does not reasonably raise, the theory that service connection is warranted based on the Veteran’s eye disability being related to his service, the Board’s adjudication will consider only entitlement to secondary service connection. Service connection may be granted on a secondary basis for a disability which is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. To prevail on the issue of entitlement to secondary service connection, there must be (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of a service-connected disability; and (3) medical nexus evidence establishing a connection between a service-connected disability and the current disability. See Wallin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 509, 512 (1998). Competent medical evidence is evidence provided by a person who is qualified through education, training, or experience to offer medical diagnoses, statements, or opinions. Competent medical evidence may include statements conveying sound medical principles found in medical treatises. Competent medical evidence may also include statements contained in authoritative writings, such as medical and scientific articles and research reports or analyses. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(1). Competent lay evidence is any evidence not requiring that the proponent have specialized education, training, or experience. For example, lay evidence is competent if it is provided by a person who has knowledge of facts or circumstances and conveys matters that can be observed and described by a lay person. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(2). This may include some medical matters, such as describing observable symptoms or relating a contemporaneous medical diagnosis. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). In this case, September 2016 VA treatment records reflect that the Veteran was diagnosed with glaucoma and underwent glaucoma filtering surgery. Thus, the evidence establishes the Veteran has a current eye disability. Further, the record reflects that the Veteran was granted service connection for hepatitis C in a May 2020 rating decision. Thus, the record establishes the presence of a service-connected disability. In a February 2020 VA opinion, in response to the question of whether it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s eye condition was caused or aggravated by hepatitis C, the clinician opined that it was not at least as likely as not. As rationale, she stated that hepatitis C does not affect eyesight and that there is no medical literature that supports the idea that hepatitis C affects eyesight. As this opinion reflects consideration of the nature of the Veteran’s condition and is supported by medical literature, the Board assigns a high degree of probative value to this opinion. The record does not contain any contrary medical opinion indicating that the Veteran’s eye condition, to include glaucoma, is caused or aggravated by service-connected hepatitis C. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s lay statements in the January 2016 VA Form 21-526EZ, Application for Disability Compensation and Related Compensation Benefits, in which he stated that his eye condition is secondary to his hepatitis C. However, a lay person is not competent to determine the etiology of such a condition because the complexity of the issue requires the expertise of a medical professional. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Board therefore does not assign significant weight to these statements. As such, the Board finds that the evidence preponderates against a finding that the Veteran’s eye condition is secondarily related to service-connected hepatitis C. Accordingly, entitlement to service connection for an eye condition as secondary to service-connected hepatitis C is not warranted. The Board has considered the benefit-of-the-doubt rule; however, since a preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim for service connection, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule is not for application, and the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 53-56. M. SORISIO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. H. White, Associate 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.