Citation Nr: 21004579 Decision Date: 01/27/21 Archive Date: 01/27/21 DOCKET NO. 15-04 964 DATE: January 27, 2021 REMANDED The claim of entitlement to service connection under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for a left eye disorder related to surgery. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from April 1960 to September 1964. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a rating decision by a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office (RO). In March 2018, the Veteran testified in a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) who is no longer employed at the Board. A transcript of the hearing has been included in the electronic record and has been reviewed. In June 2018, the Board remanded the claim on appeal for additional development. The Veteran died in April 2019. The appellant is his surviving spouse. In October 2019, the RO granted the appellant’s application to be substituted into the Veteran’s pending claim. In November 2020, the Board offered the appellant an opportunity to testify in a hearing before the undersigned VLJ. She did not respond the offer. As such, the case is again before the Board for appellate review. The appellant asserts that VA left eye surgery in September 2010 resulted in an additional left eye disorder, and that the disorder was a result of negligent treatment. See 38 U.S.C. § 1151. In the remand, the Board requested additional medical inquiry into the claim. The case must again be remanded. Clarification is necessary with regard to certain comments provided in response to the remand. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998) (the Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure compliance with previous remand directives). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Return the case to the examiner who issued the December 2019 VA opinion (or to a suitable substitute) for issuance of an addendum medical opinion. After reviewing the claims file, the examiner should answer the following questions. (1). Is it at least as likely as not (i.e., probability of 50 percent or more) that aqueous misdirection syndrome resulted from VA left eye surgery in September 2010? Or is it likely that aqueous misdirection syndrome preexisted the surgery? (2). If you find that aqueous misdirection syndrome as likely as not resulted from surgery, further explain your finding that the disorder was not proximately caused by carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, error in judgment, or similar instance of fault on the part of VA’s surgical treatment. In detail, explain how it is that a disorder resulting from surgery, which appears to have caused the Veteran adverse symptoms, was not due to faulty treatment? (3). If you find that aqueous misdirection syndrome as likely as not resulted from surgery, further discuss whether aqueous misdirection syndrome was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the surgery. In other words, is aqueous misdirection syndrome a known complication of the type of eye surgery performed on the Veteran in September 2010? Do not address (2) and (3) if you find it likely that aqueous misdirection syndrome preexisted the surgery. Please explain in detail any opinion provided. G. A. WASIK Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Christopher McEntee, 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.