Citation Nr: 21065228
Decision Date: 10/25/21	Archive Date: 10/25/21

DOCKET NO. 16-15 768A
DATE: October 25, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for defective stereopsis is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from December 1988 to August 1996 and December 2000 to April 2012.

This matter was previously before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) in February 2021, at which time it was remanded for further development.  

As will be discussed in greater detail this matter must once again be remanded for further development.  

At the time of the prior remand, the Board noted that a previous medical opinion had been obtained in October 2020.  The Board observed that while the examiner provided the requested opinion, she also identified the Veteran's condition as congenital (developmental).  As a result of this classification, additional development was warranted, to include obtaining an addendum opinion.

The Board requested that the claims folder be returned to the examiner who had provided the October 2020 opinion for an addendum opinion.  The examiner was requested to provide the following opinions:  Was the Veteran's defective stereopsis a congenital/developmental defect?  If so, was it as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that there was additional disability superimposed upon that defect during service?.  The examiner was also to state whether or not the disability increased in severity during service.  If so, the examiner was to state whether any increase in disability was due to the natural progress of the disorder.

If the defective stereopsis was not a congenital/developmental defect, the examiner was to provide an opinion as to whether it was at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the disability had its onset in service or was otherwise related to service.  Complete detailed rationale was requested for each opinion that was rendered.  

In a March 2021 addendum opinion, the examiner indicated that the claimed condition was less likely than not incurred in or caused by a claimed inservice injury, event or illness.  The examiner indicated that the Veteran's stereopsis was at least as likely as not a congenital/developmental defect as stereopsis was most commonly due to amblyopia and developmental defects.  It was less likely than not that the disability had its onset during service nor was it related to service.

While the requested opinion was provided, the examiner did not address all the questions set forth in the remand, with specific attention being drawn to the examiner not addressing whether it was as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that there was additional disability superimposed upon that defect during service or whether or not the disability increased in severity during service, as the examiner identified the Veteran's eye disorder as a congenital defect.  The Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure compliance with the instructions of its prior remand.  See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998).  The matter must be remanded for compliance with the directives of the prior Board remand.

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:

If available, return the claims folder to the examiner who provided the March 2021 addendum opinion.  Following a review of the entire file, the examiner must provide specific answers to the following questions: As the Veteran's defective stereopsis has been identified as a congenital defect, is it as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that there was additional disability superimposed upon that defect during service.  This opinion should consider all pertinent evidence.  

Please state whether or not the disability increased in severity during service.  If so, state whether any increase in disability was due to the natural progress of the disorder.

Complete detailed rationale should be provided for each opinion that is rendered.   

 

 

K. Parakkal

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	T. S. Kelly, 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.