Citation Nr: 21065394
Decision Date: 10/26/21	Archive Date: 10/26/21

DOCKET NO. 14-34 701A
DATE: October 26, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for an eye disorder is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from September 1969 to August 1971, with service in Vietnam.  The Veteran also had subsequent service with the Reserves.

The issue comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). 

The Veteran and his spouse, O. W., testified at a Board hearing in November 2018, before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ), who held open the record for 90 days for the submission of additional evidence.  A copy of the transcript is of record.

This issue was twice before the Board in May 2019 and October 2020 and remanded.  The most recent remand of October 2020 mandated that the RO schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the etiology of his eye disability.  The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in April 2021 and an addendum in July 2021.  The Board finds the opinions are incomplete for the examiner failed to provide an adequate rationale for the direct causation and provide separate and adequate opinions and rationales for the secondary service connection.  Thus, there has not been substantial compliance.  Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998).  Supplemental opinions are required.  

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Provide the Veteran's claims file to a suitable clinician so a supplemental opinion may be provided for the Veteran's eye disability.  The entire claims file and a copy of this remand must be made available to the clinician for review.  A physical examination of the Veteran or telehealth examination is only required if deemed necessary by the clinician.  

The examiner must provide opinions as to the following:

a.	Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's cataracts and dry eye began during active service, or is related to service, to include being hit in the "left eye area" by spent cartridges while firing weapons, or due to his exposure to herbicides.  

It is not sufficient to provide a negative opinion regarding herbicides because cataracts are not on the list of diseases and conditions presumptively associated with exposure to herbicides.  

b.	Whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's cataracts and dry eye were proximately due to or the result of his service-connected diabetes mellitus or CAD.

c.	Whether it is at least as likely as not that his cataracts and dry eye were aggravated beyond their natural progression by his service-connected diabetes mellitus or CAD.  

To be adequate, a VA opinion must provide separate rationales for both causation and aggravation.  Atencio v. O'Rourke, 30 Vet. App. 74 (2018).  

The examiner must provide a complete rationale for his or her opinion(s) in the examination report.  If any of the above requested opinions cannot be made without resort to speculation, the examiner must state this and provide a rationale for such conclusion. 

2. Readjudicate the claim.  

 

 

D. Martz Ames

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	N. Stevens, 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.