Citation Nr: 21063753 Decision Date: 10/15/21 Archive Date: 10/15/21 DOCKET NO. 14-08 666 DATE: October 15, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a compensable disability rating for postoperative residuals of cataracts is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served honorably on active duty with the United States Army from April 1968 to April 1971, including overseas service in Vietnam. The Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in April 2017. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file. This case was most recently before the Board in March 2021, at which time it was remanded for additional development. Regrettably, for the reasons discussed below, another remand is necessary. In its March 2021 remand instructions, the Board directed the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) to obtain any visual field charts associated with the VA eye examination conducted in February 2018, during which the examiner indicated that visual field testing was performed, but that the Veteran did not have a visual field defect or condition that may result in a visual field defect. In accordance with the Board's remand instructions, the AOJ obtained the visual field charts and associated them with the claims file in March 2021. Contrary to the examiner's determination that the Veteran did not have a visual field defect, the charts show significant defects that are potentially commensurate with a compensable disability rating if they can be attributable to the Veteran's service-connected eye disability. Unfortunately, to date, there is no explanation for the visual field defects. A VA examiner must identify the disease, injury, or other pathologic process for any visual impairment found during an examination. 38 C.F.R. § 4.75(b). As there is presently no explanation for the visual field defects documented in February 2018, remand is warranted to obtain an addendum opinion to attempt to identify the disease, injury, or other pathologic process responsible for the visual field defects documented during the February 2018 VA eye examination. Additionally, the Board notes that the Veteran was recently afforded another VA eye examination in May 2021. The examiner indicated that the Veteran did not have a documented visual field defect, but she did not note whether visual field testing was performed as part of the examination. However, in the remarks section, the examiner suggested that visual field testing was performed, and that it showed a decrease in visual fields, though she wrote that it did not correlate to any eye conditions. She further wrote that the Veteran was "[r]etested in the room with confrontation fields and claimant was within normal limits" and that visual field was "exacerbated" during testing. The examiner did not explain these findings, however, and there are no visual field charts available for review. Given the February 2018 visual field charts showing visual field defects without discussion of the etiology of those defects, as well as the May 2021 examiner's statement that visual field testing showed a decrease in visual fields, the Board finds that remand is warranted to attempt to obtain the charts associated with any visual field testing performed during the May 2021 VA eye examination. Accordingly, the matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain and associate with the claims file any visual field charts from the Veteran's May 2021 VA eye examination. 2. Then, obtain an addendum opinion from a licensed optometrist or ophthalmologist identifying the pathologic process responsible for the visual field defects documented in the Goldmann visual field charts associated with the February 2018 VA eye examination. If applicable, the examiner is asked to reconcile the findings with any visual field defects documented on the VA examination conducted in May 2021. The need for another examination is left to the discretion of the practitioner providing the opinion. 3. Then, readjudicate the issue on appeal as noted above. If the claim remains denied, issue the Veteran and his representative a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and afford them the applicable time period to respond. Caroline B. Fleming Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board G. T. Raftery, 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.