Citation Nr: 21004079 Decision Date: 01/25/21 Archive Date: 01/25/21 DOCKET NO. 13-06 755 DATE: January 25, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left eye disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from April 2009 to April 2010, to include service in Iraq/Kuwait. He also had service in the Army National Guard, to include a period of active duty for training from March 2007 to July 2007. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2012 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in St. Paul, Minnesota. The issue on appeal was previously before the Board in December 2016 and August 2018, when it was remanded to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) for additional development. On both occasions, after taking further action, the AOJ confirmed and continued the prior denial and returned the case to the Board. Entitlement to service connection for a left eye disability. When the Board remanded this case in August 2018, it requested that an addendum opinion be obtained from a prior examiner as to whether any diagnosed left eye disability that had been present at any time since May 2010 (even if such disability had since resolved)—to include convergence insufficiency, epiretinal membrane (ERM), photophobia, and accommodative insufficiency—had its onset in service or was otherwise related to a disease or injury in service, including reported symptoms and diagnosis of solar burn, as well as a documented corneal scratch during service. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in June 2019. The examiner stated, in part, that there was no evidence of convergence, ERM, photophobia, or accommodative insufficiency present at the time of the examination. However, as noted, the Board directed that the examiner should consider whether there was a diagnosed left eye disability present at any time since May 2010. Because the examiner only discussed whether a disability was present at the time of the examination in June 2019, a remand is necessary. See, Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). This matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Return the record to the examiner who conducted the June 2019 VA examination. The record must be made available to the examiner. If the June 2019 VA examiner is not available, the record should be provided to an appropriate medical professional so as to render the requested opinion. The need for an additional examination of the Veteran is left to the discretion of the clinician selected to write the addendum opinion. Following a review of the record, the examiner should offer an opinion as to whether any diagnosed left eye disability that has been present at any time since May 2010 (even if such has resolved), to include convergence insufficiency, ERM, photophobia, and accommodative insufficiency, had its onset in service or is otherwise related to a disease or injury in service, including the reported symptoms and diagnosis of solar burn as well as the documented corneal scratch during service. Pertinent to the Veteran’s diagnosed refractive error of the left eye, the examiner should offer an opinion as to whether there has been additional disability due to disease or injury superimposed upon such defect during service? If so, please identify the additional disability. If the examiner finds that such diagnoses were not present at any time since May 2010, the examiner should explain the basis for such determination. The examiner should provide reasons for the opinions that take into account the Veteran’s reports of his history, the reported in-service injuries, exposures, or events, and his current symptoms. If the examiner discounts the Veteran’s reports, he or she should provide a reason for doing so. A rationale should be provided for any opinion offered. 2. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraph, the issue on appeal should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If the benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. DAVID A. BRENNINGMEYER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Smith, 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.