Citation Nr: 21068743 Decision Date: 11/12/21 Archive Date: 11/12/21 DOCKET NO. 17-00 562 DATE: November 12, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right eye disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from March 1985 to September 2006, including service in Southwest Asia. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2016 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In a November 2017 correspondence, the Veteran withdrew his prior request for a Board hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(e). In a November 2018 decision, the Board reopened the claim for entitlement to service connection for a right eye disorder, and remanded the claim for additional development. In May 2021, the Board once again remanded the claim for additional development. The Veteran also appealed the issues of entitlement to service connection for obstructive sleep apnea and right and left knee disabilities. In an August 2021 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for obstructive sleep apnea and patellofemoral pain syndrome of the right and left knee, which constitutes full awards of the benefits sought on appeal. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F. 3d 1156, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Thus, those matters are no longer in appellate status. The Veteran's claim was last remanded to obtain a medical opinion to determine whether the Veteran's current right eye disability was related to an in-service corneal abrasion to the right eye with removal of a foreign body in 1992 and/or removal of a pterygium in September 1995. The examiner was specifically requested to address and accept as true the Veteran's report of constant dry eyes as a continuation of his in-service eye injury, with continuous itching and irritation since he separated from service, and determine whether a relationship between his current diagnoses and procedures in service is "medically plausible." Unfortunately, the examiner failed to provide the requested opinion. The examiner opined that the Veteran's previous injury and surgical intervention have completely resolved and there was no evidence of any dry eye issues. The examiner noted that the Veteran has diabetic retinopathy that represents a progression of a prediabetic condition noted in 2005. The examiner concluded that there is no nexus, and it is therefore less likely than not that the Veteran's right eye disorder began during or is related to an incident in service. While the examiner stated that there was no evidence of dry eye issues, the examiner was specifically requested to address and accept as true the Veteran's reports of constant dry eyes with continuous itching and irritation since he separated from service and determine whether a relationship between his current diagnoses and procedures in service was medically plausible. Consequently, the examination report does not substantially comply with the remand directives, and an addendum opinion must be obtained. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion from a VA examiner other than the April 2007, May 2016, February 2020, and July 2021 VA examiners, as to the etiology of the Veteran's right eye disorder. The claims file should be made available to and should be reviewed by the examiner. No additional examination of the Veteran is necessary, unless the examiner determines otherwise. The examiner must provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's current right eye disorder began during active service or is related to an incident of service, to include: (a) a corneal abrasion to the right eye with removal of a foreign body in 1992 and/or (b) removal of a pterygium in September 1995. In addressing this question, the examiner must discuss and accept as true the Veteran's statement that he has constant dry eyes as a continuation of his in-service eye injury, with continuous itching and irritation since he separated from service, and determine whether a relationship between his current diagnoses and procedures in service is "medically plausible". See July 2016 notice of disagreement (NOD); December 2016 VA Form 9. 2. Confirm that the medical opinion obtained comports with this remand, and undertake any other development determined to be warranted. 3. Then, readjudicate the issue on appeal. If a decision is adverse to the Veteran, issue a supplemental statement of the case and allow appropriate time for response. Then, return the case to the Board. Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Cryan, 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.