Citation Nr: 21001938 Decision Date: 01/12/21 Archive Date: 01/12/21 DOCKET NO. 20-24 243 DATE: January 12, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye condition secondary to strokes is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran is not service connected for strokes; his bilateral eye condition is not secondary to a service-connected disability. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a bilateral eye condition due to a service-connected disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from April 1961 to April 1964. This case is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2019 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Although the Veteran initially requested a videoconference hearing, see May 2020 VA Form 9; he subsequently withdrew his request for a Board hearing. See July 2020 Correspondence from the Veteran’s attorney. The Board observes that additional VA treatment records and examinations were received following the last adjudication by the RO in the March 2020 statement of the case (SOC). The Board reviewed these records and observes that they are not pertinent to the issue of service connection for a bilateral eye condition secondary to strokes. Therefore, a waiver is not necessary, and the Board will proceed with adjudication of the issue on appeal. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye condition secondary to strokes A disability that is proximately due to, or results from, another disease or injury for which service connection has been granted, will be considered part of the original disorder. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). To establish secondary service connection, the record must show: (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of a service-connected disability; and (3) a connection between the service-connected disability and the current disability. See Wallin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 509, 511 (1998). The Veteran contends that his bilateral eye condition is secondary to a stroke. He does not contend that his bilateral eye condition began during service or is etiologically related to his time spent on active duty. See November 2018 claim for compensation. The Veteran is currently diagnosed with bilateral pseudophakia, cataracts, and experiences inadequate fixation, tracking, visual memory, motor precision, speed and visualization in his eyes; thereby establishing the current disability element of the secondary service connection claim. See March 2020 VA eye examination, Dr. W.’s July 2019 eye exam and April through July 2018 medical records from Dr. K. Further, a March 2020 VA examiner, Dr. V. opined that the Veteran’s bilateral eye condition is at least as likely as not proximately due to or the result of a stroke. She noted that per the Veteran’s exam with Dr. W., the Veteran was noted to have inadequate fixation, tracking, visual memory, motor precision, speed and visualization. See July 2019 eye exam by Dr. W. Dr. V. explained that this can be the result of his multiple strokes and noted that the Veteran has been seen by several eye care providers, including ophthalmologists who concur that the Veteran’s vision problems are due to strokes. However, despite evidence of a current bilateral eye disability and a medical opinion connecting the Veteran’s bilateral eye disability to strokes, the salient point to make is that the Veteran is not currently service-connected for strokes. Currently, the Veteran is only in receipt of service connection for bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. In fact, a claim for service connection for a stroke was denied in a May 2020 Board decision and again in a December 2020 rating decision after the Veteran filed a supplemental claim. As the Veteran is not currently service-connected for strokes, his claim for service connection for a bilateral eye disability secondary to strokes must be denied as a matter of law. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.310; Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426 (1994). Jennifer White Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Alison M. Mecone, 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.