Citation Nr: A21017389 Decision Date: 10/27/21 Archive Date: 10/27/21 DOCKET NO. 200121-62643 DATE: October 27, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an eye condition, to include blindness, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1994 to September 1998. Of relevance to this appeal, on August 23, 2017, the President signed into law the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 115-55, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). The implementation date for AMA was February 19, 2019. Under the AMA, an appeal can be perfected by submitting a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) using the appropriate form, VA Form 10182, directly to the Board, and identifying the underlying unfavorable decision and issues with which the Veteran disagrees. This appeal comes before the Board of Veteran's Appeals (Board) from a September 2019 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) adjudicated under the AMA. In the January 2020 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal, the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Evidence was added to the claims file during a period of time when new evidence was not allowed. As the Board is remanding the present claim for further development, this additional evidence will be considered by the RO in the adjudication of those claims. 1. Entitlement to service connection for an eye condition, to include blindness, is remanded. When the Board identifies a pre-decisional duty to assist error in an AMA appeal, under Pub. L. No. 115-55, section 2(d)(2); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159(c), 20.802(a), the Board will remand the appeal back to the AOJ with instructions to correct the error. Following correction of the error, the AOJ must readjudicate the issue. Pub. L. No. 115-55, § 2(d)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.2502. The Veteran is seeking service connection for an eye condition which he contends may be etiologically related to his service-connected traumatic brain injury (TBI). A review of the record shows that the Veteran received VA examinations for his claimed condition in December 2018 and August 2019. The December 2018 examiner diagnosed the Veteran with a visual field defect, but recommended that the Veteran be evaluated by a neuro-ophthalmologist. In contrast, the August 2019 examiner opined that "there is not credible evidence to support a diagnosis of visual field defect." However, the Board observes that the record indicates an opinion by a neuro-ophthalmologist has been recommended, but not yet obtained. Specifically, the Board observes that the December 2018 examination was rendered by an ophthalmologist and the August 2019 examination was conducted by an optometrist. Accordingly, the Board finds that failure of the RO to obtain the recommended medical opinion constitutes a pre-decisional duty to assist error and that remand is necessary to obtain an opinion from a neuro-ophthalmologist regarding the nature and etiology of the claimed eye condition. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for an examination with a qualified neuro-ophthalmologist to confirm the presence of a current eye condition, to include visual field defect and to obtain an opinion regarding the etiology of such defect if found. The examiner is directed to identify any diagnosed eye conditions at any point during the applicable appeal period. For each identified eye condition, the examiner must state an opinion regarding whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or more) that the Veteran's diagnosed eye condition is related to his active duty service or to his service-connected disabilities, to include traumatic brain injury (TBI). The examiner should address the conflicting opinions found in the December 2018 and August 2019 VA examination reports. T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Gorum, Associate 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.