Citation Nr: 21062768 Decision Date: 10/12/21 Archive Date: 10/12/21 DOCKET NO. 14-29 314 DATE: October 12, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a vision disorder is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran served on active duty from October 1964 to June 1967; he died in March 2015 and his widow has been properly substituted as the claimant. 2. A chronic vision disorder was not shown in service; vision disorders, diagnosed as choroidal nevus of the left eye, bilateral cataracts, and eyelid injuries, were not causally or etiologically related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW A vision disorder was not incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103A, 5103(a), 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303 (2021). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The appellant testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in December 2019. A copy of the transcript has been associated with the record. In March 2020, the Board denied the appeal. The appellant appealed to the Veteran's Claims Court. In December 2020, the Court Clerk granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR). In May 2021, the Board remanded the case for action in compliance with the JMPR. The issue has now been returned to the Board for further appellate action. Turning to the relevant laws and regulations, service connection may be granted on a direct basis as a result of disease or injury incurred in service based on nexus using a three-element test: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a), (d); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Service connection may be granted on a presumptive basis for diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 under the following circumstances: (1) where a chronic disease or injury is shown in service and subsequent manifestations of the same disease or injury are shown at a later date unless clearly attributable to an intercurrent cause; or (2) where there is continuity of symptomatology since service; or (3) by showing that the disorder manifested itself to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year from the date of separation from service. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.307. The Veteran asserted that he had vision problems as a result of a beating incurred while he was on active duty in April 1966. He stated that he experienced trouble seeing since that time. Initially, at a May 2012 VA examination the Veteran was diagnosed with left eye choroidal nevus, bilateral cataracts, and eyelid injuries. As such, he had eye diagnoses at the time of his death, and the first element of service connection was satisfied. Next, the service treatment records (STRs) show treatment after a fight in April 1966. Specifically, the treatment provider noted that the Veteran was kicked in the neck by another person and beaten badly in April and May 1966. He was oriented to time and place, but his pupils were not reactive to light. The treatment provider noted that the Veteran had lacerations on his eyes. At the May 1967 separation examination, the Veteran denied any eye trouble, wearing glasses, neuritis, or any other trouble. He was also neurologically intact upon examination. This suggests that there were no eye residuals from the altercations, which had occurred a year earlier. Nonetheless, as an eye injury was shown in service, the second element of service connection, an in-service incurrence, was met. As to medical nexus, in a May 2012 TBI VA examination, the Veteran complained of worsening vision since he was beaten in service. The examiner reviewed the entire claims file and examined him and opined that it was less likely than not any eye disorder was a result of service. The examiner reasoned that there was no indication of an eye injury during service, to include following the fight. Specifically, the examiner noted that while there were superficial lacerations, the eyes remained uninjured. This was further evidenced by the denial of any vision problems at the separation examination. Importantly, the Veteran's private and VA treatment records similarly reveal no indication of a nexus between the service, specifically his in-service injury, and any vision issues. In this regard, at a November 1975 VA examination, the examiner discussed the fight and its residuals and noted only the paralysis of the vocal cord as a remaining symptom. The Veteran noted that his voice faded in and out but complained of no other residuals. At that time, the Veteran's pupils were examined and found to be normal. No vision deficits were found. These findings were also absent from a May 1996 VA general medical examination, although he listed other ailments. Next, a May 2021 VA opinion report stated that there were no actual eye injuries from the face lacerations in service. The clinician opined that the Veteran choroidal nevus and cataracts had no relationship to trauma in service, including the inservice trauma. The clinician noted that while cataracts have potential to be caused by trauma, such cataracts would be expected to manifest recently after trauma and have an appearance unique to traumatic cataracts, which was not noted in the Veteran's case. Additionally, the Veteran's cataracts were not observed until many years after service and many years after the reported trauma. The clinician opined that the Veteran's cataracts were consistent with normal age-related cataracts. The clinician concluded that it is less likely than not that the Veteran's ocular pathology was incurred in or due to military service. There is no medical opinion in favor of the claim. As such, the medical evidence weighs against the claim. The Board has considered the Veteran's lay statements and those of the appellant that his eye disorders were caused by service. They are competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge as it comes to them through their senses. However, they are not competent to offer an opinion as to the etiologies of his disorders due to the medical complexity of the matters involved. Such competent evidence has been provided by the service records, clinical evidence, and examinations obtained and associated with the claims file. Here, the Board attaches greater probative weight to the clinical findings than to their statements. In light of the above, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claims for service connection and there is no doubt to be otherwise resolved. As such, the appeal is denied. Finally, neither the Veteran nor the appellant raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, for the Board's consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-370 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Redman, 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.