Citation Nr: 21065964 Decision Date: 10/28/21 Archive Date: 10/28/21 DOCKET NO. 15-30 380 DATE: October 28, 2021 ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for an eye disability, to include blepharitis and vision issues, as due to welding in service. 2. Entitlement to service connection for flash burn scars as due to welding. ORDER 1. Entitlement to service connection for an eye disability, to include blepharitis and vision issues, as due to welding in service, is denied. 2. Entitlement to service connection for flash burn scars as due to welding in service is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. There is no diagnosis of blepharitis or any other eye disability for which service connection may be granted. 2. The Veteran's current flash burn scars resulted from an in-service injury. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for an eye disability, to include blepharitis and vision issues, as due to welding in service, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 4.9. 2. The criteria for service connection for flash burn scars as due to welding in service as have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from December 1991 to May 1999. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. On the Veteran's June 2015 VA Form 9, the Veteran requested a Board hearing at a local VA office. However, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the hearing was postponed and eventually scheduled for a virtual hearing in August 2021 and the Veteran failed to attend. The Veteran has not asserted that he did not receive notice or that he failed to attend due to good cause, and, therefore, the Board finds the Veteran's request for a hearing to be withdrawn. 38 C.F.R. § 20.702 (if the appellant fails to appear for a hearing without good cause, the case will be processed as though the request for the hearing had been withdrawn). The Board notes that the Veteran has filed a claim for blepharitis and noted vision issues. Given the Veteran's assertions regarding an eye disability, the Board has expanded the Veteran's claim for entitlement to service connection for blepharitis to entitlement to service connection for an eye disability, to include blepharitis and vision issues, as noted on the cover page herein. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009) (holding that a claim for benefits for a particular mental disability "cannot be a claim limited to that diagnosis, but must rather be considered a claim for any mental disability that my reasonably be encompassed" by the evidence). Duty to Notify and Assist The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) and implementing regulations impose obligations on VA to provide claimants with notice and assistance. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a). Primarily, the Board notes that the Veteran requested that VA obtain medical records from a private medical center for treatment received from January 2014 to June 2015. As a result, VA requested such records in July 2015. In response, the medical center responded that they would not release the records without payment. VA regulations prohibit VA from paying any fees charged by a custodian to provide records requested. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c). The Veteran was notified of this and was given the opportunity to provide those records himself, should he wish for those records to be considered. See May 2016 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC). However, the Veteran has not submitted such records, and therefore, such cannot be considered. The Veteran in this case has not referred to any deficiencies in either the duties to notify or assist; therefore, the Board may proceed to the merits of the claim. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015, cert denied, U.S.C. Oct. 3, 2016) (holding that "the Board's obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board....to search the record and address procedural arguments when the [appellant] fails to raise them before the Board"); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to an appellant's failure to raise a duty to assist argument before the Board). The Board has reviewed all of the evidence in the Veteran's claims file. Although there is an obligation to provide adequate reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no requirement that the evidence submitted by the Veteran or obtained on his behalf be discussed in detail. Rather, the analysis below will focus specifically on what evidence is needed to substantiate the claim and what the evidence in the claims file shows, or fails to show, with respect to the claim. See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000) and Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122, 128-130 (2000). Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a veteran must show: (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 or aggravated during service. Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Service connection is also warranted for a disability which is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). Such secondary service connection is warranted for any increase in severity of a nonservice-connected disability that is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(b). 1. Entitlement to service connection for an eye disability, to include blepharitis and vision issues, as due to welding in service, is denied. The Veteran asserts that he has blepharitis and vision issues since serving as a welder in service. The Veteran in his June 2015 VA Form 9 stated that he continues to have "vision issues" and that the "only cause could be [his] exposure to UV light as a welder in the Navy." The only medical evidence available in the record is an October 2012 VA eye examination. The examiner noted visual symptoms of blurring in both eyes. No other symptoms were noted. The examiner performed an in-person examination and after conducting various tests, concluded that the Veteran's bilateral eyes were normal other than refractive error causing poor vision. Specifically, the examination found no physical findings of abnormal accomodation, abnormal lacrimal duct function, abnormal eyelids, chronic conjunctivitis, residuals of eye injury, lagophthalmos, symblepharon, ptosis, nystagmus, eyelash loss, or eyebrow loss. Muscle function examination was found to be normal. The Board notes that service connection for vision loss based on refractive error is not a diagnosis for which service connection may be granted because such declining vision is correctable refractive error and is not a disability for the purposes of service connection. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 (c), 4.9. Myopia, astigmatism, and presbyopia are all considered to be forms of refractive error. Instead, actual pathology, other than refractive error, is required to support impairment of visual acuity. Thus, service connection for any of these diagnoses is denied. Id. As there is no eye disability of record other than refractive error noted above, the Board finds the preponderance of the evidence is against entitlement to service connection for and eye disability, to include blepharitis and vision issues. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992) (indicating service connection presupposes a current diagnosis of the condition claimed). The Board acknowledges the Veteran's belief that he has an eye disability as a result of his welding in service. However, the Veteran has not been shown to possess the requisite medical expertise or knowledge to render a medical diagnosis of an eye disability. Although a lay person, such as the Veteran, is competent to describe observable symptoms, such as vision issues, the diagnosis of an eye disability, involves a complex medical question and does not lend itself to lay opinion evidence. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional); see also Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011). The Board finds that the Veteran is not competent to diagnose himself with an eye disability. Last, the Board has considered the holding in Saunders v. Wilkie in which service connection was deemed possible in the absence of a diagnosis when such factors as pain are shown to limit functional ability. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("pain alone can serve as a functional impairment and therefore qualify as a disability"). That Federal Circuit decision qualified that holding, however: "[w]e do not hold that a veteran could demonstrate service connection simply by asserting subjective pain. To establish the presence of a disability, the veteran will need to show that [his] pain reaches the level of functional impairment of earning capacity." Id. at 1365. In this case, however, the Veteran has solely asserted vision issues, and such functional impairment has been attributed to his now diagnosed refractive error. See October 2012 VA examination. The Veteran has not asserted any additional functional impairment other than vision issues, nor has he asserted any pain of his eyes. Thus, the Veteran finds that Saunders does not apply in this case. In view of the foregoing, the Board must conclude that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim. As the Board finds that the requirement of a current disability has not been met, the Board need not address the other elements of service connection. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not for application and the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. 2. Entitlement to service connection for flash burn scars as due to welding in service is granted. The Veteran asserts that he has flash burn scars on his upper extremities from serving as a welder in service. At the October 2012 VA examination, the Veteran reported that between 1993 to 1998, he was in the Navy and he served as welder. The Veteran asserts that he was exposed to high-pressure steam components which needed numerous repairs, and from which he suffered burns to both forearms. The Veteran reported the scars to be present, not painful, and stable. The Board finds the Veteran's assertions as to his injury in-service to be credible and consistent with his service. The VA examiner reported a diagnosis of scars status-post flash burns to upper extremities due to welding. Therefore, the Board notes a current diagnosis of scars and turns to the remaining issue of nexus. The October 2012 VA examiner opined that "[t]he claimed condition was at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness." The examiner provided the following rationale: "C-files show that the [Veteran's] DD214 has the information on serving the military from 12/5/91 to 5/3/99, with a primary specialty job assignment of HT [hull maintenance]. Hull tech performs the job at sea and ashore, by welding et al., as described in http://usmilitary.about.com/od/enlistedjob1/a/ht.htm. The [Veteran's] physical exam shows scars on some areas of his skin on both upper extremities. He claimed that the scars were due to burns he incurred while performing the job as a welder. While there was no evidence of this occurrence documented in C-files, the [Veteran's] history he provided of the etiology of the scars seemed valid as it provides consistency with the job description as displayed in his DD214. Thus, the veteran's flash burns due to welding occupation are at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) incurred in or caused by the welding courses and MOS of hull maintenance tech that occurred during service." The Board finds the VA medical opinion above to be highly probative, as it is based on the Veteran's reported history and review of the service records and provides a supported rationale. As such, the benefit-of-the-doubt is conferred in the Veteran's favor and his claim for service connection for flash burn scars as due to welding in service is granted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53-56 (1990). Michael A. Pappas Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Tunis, 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.