Citation Nr: 21067633 Decision Date: 11/04/21 Archive Date: 11/04/21 DOCKET NO. 19-10 072 DATE: November 4, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right eye disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty for training in the U.S. Army National Guard from October 1982 to May 1983, on active duty in the Army Reserve from June 2004 to May 2006, and from May 2008 to May 2011, with additional active duty for training (ACDUTRA) in the Army Reserve and National Guard. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2018 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In May 2021 a video conference hearing was held before the undersigned; a transcript is in the record. Entitlement to service connection for a right eye disability The Board finds that additional development is necessary for proper adjudication of this claim. A July 1992 urgent care record notes the Veteran was seen after a card hit her right eye causing redness, pain, and excessive tearing. The record notes the injury occurred during active duty for training. On April 1994 report of medical history, the Veteran reported a history of eye trouble. The Veteran's subsequent clinical evaluation of the eyes were normal. January 1999 and May 2003 physical examination reports were silent for any reports by the Veteran or observations by an examiner of residuals. There are records of injury to the cervical spine area in a motor vehicle accident in 2004. No eye symptoms were noted in July 2006, June 2007, and February 2009 routine eye examinations. In a January 2015, a VA clinician noted the Veteran's reports of dry eye and pain in the left eye with a family history of glaucoma. Subsequent VA eye treatment periodically for the next three years included reports and treatment for "red eye" and inflamed pinguecula. In March 2018 a clinician noted the Veteran's reports of red eyes and pain at times. The clinician noted a review of the electronic claims file and on examination diagnosed pinguecula and cortical cataracts. The Veteran was unable to report on the start of the symptoms but mentioned that it was before a motor vehicle accident. The examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's eye disability was related to service but provided no rationale. The Board finds that the opinion is conclusory and inadequate for rating purposes. Notably, when VA undertakes to provide the Veteran with a medical opinion, it must provide one that is adequate. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). During the May 2021 video conference hearing the Veteran testified that she was told by a VA provider at the Jackson VAMC that her right eye disability was related to service. See May 2021 Video Conference Hearing pg. 4-5. A review of the record did not find such opinion by a VA provider. The question of whether the Veteran's current eye disability may be related to an injury sustained while on ACDUTRA service in July 1992 is a medical question. Accordingly, a medical opinion is necessary. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should secure updated (to the present) clinical records of all VA examinations and treatment the Veteran has received for her eye disabilities at the Jackson VAMC. 2. Arrange for the Veteran's record to be forwarded to an appropriate clinician for review, and a medical advisory opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran's right eye disability (if further examination is deemed necessary for the opinion sought, such should be arranged). Upon review of the record (to include the report of a July 1992 injury to the right eye) the clinician should respond to the following: (a.) Identify (by diagnosis) each right eye disability shown. (b.) Identify the likely etiology for the Veteran's right eye disability. Is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that it is caused by the reported 1992 or any other injury in service? If the opinion is that the Veteran's right eye disability is not related to service, provide the etiology considered more likely and explain why that is so. The clinician must provide a complete rationale for all findings and opinions, and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. J.W. FRANCIS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board N. Staskowski, 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.