Citation Nr: 21068836 Decision Date: 11/15/21 Archive Date: 11/15/21 DOCKET NO. 17-29 199 DATE: November 15, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye condition (claimed as macular degeneration or blindness) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from March 1980 to June 1980 and served on active duty for training (ACDUTRA) in the United States Navy Reserves. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2016 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In November 2019, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is in the record. The Veteran's claims were previously remanded by the Board in January 2020 and June 2021 decision. Although the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, a remand is again necessary to ensure that due process is followed and that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran's claim so that he is afforded every possible consideration. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. Compliance with remand directives is not optional or discretionary, and the Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure remand compliance. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The Board's prior remand directed a new VA examination with opinions and rationale that will allow the Board's decision to be a fully informed one. See D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 104 (2008). Specifically, the Board requested the VA examiner to discuss the Veteran's lay statements that he was exposed to welding activity without adequate eye protection during service. In addition, the Board directed the examiner to consider whether the Veteran's condition was aggravated during his active service. The medical evidence suggests that the Veteran's macular degeneration, Stargardt's disease, is a congenital or genetic disease. Congenital or developmental defects are not diseases or injuries subject to VA compensation, they can be subject to superimposed disease or injury and, if the superimposed disease or injury occurs during service, service connection may be warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (c); VAOPGCPREC 82-90 (1990), 55 Fed. Reg. 45711 (1990). Given the Veteran's testimony that his eye problem had its onset in service in the late 1980s, the Board directed an opinion from a VA examiner to clarify whether the Veteran's bilateral eye disorder preexisted active service; whether the disorder is a genetic disorder; and if so, if the congenital or developmental defect of Stargardt's disease was subjected to superimposed disease or injury during service. The July 2021 VA examiner only explained that Stargardt's disease is a genetic disease that manifests when someone is in their teens or twenties. In specifically discussing the Veteran, the examiner explained the Stargardt's disease did not cause any other eye injury. That still leaves open the possibility the Veteran had another eye injury or disease in service that, while not caused or aggravated by the Stargardt's disease, still played a role in the Veteran's current condition. Thus, the VA examiner answered a question not raised by the record and did not address the issues raised by the Board. The examiner also did not discuss the Veteran's report of exposure to welding activities. Another remand is necessary to obtain the requested opinions that will allow the Board to make a fully informed decision. In addition, review of the records reveals that the Veteran has applied for Social Security Administration disability benefits because of his macular degeneration. These records have not been associated with the Veteran's file. The Social Security Administration disability benefits records may be relevant to the Veteran's claim and should be obtained. See Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Ongoing medical treatment records should also be obtained. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to identify all outstanding treatment records relevant to his eye disability claim. All identified VA records should be added to the claims file. All other properly identified records should be obtained if the necessary authorization to obtain the records is provided by the Veteran. If any records are not available, or the Veteran identifies sources of treatment but does not provide authorization to obtain records, appropriate action should be taken (see 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)-(e)), to include notifying the Veteran of the unavailability of the records. 2. Request all relevant records from the Social Security Administration, to include medical records used in deciding any claim for disability benefits. 3. After records development is completed, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any current disability of the eyes onset during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, to include the Veteran's exposure to welding activity without adequate eye protection during service. In offering the opinion, the examiner must consider and discuss the following: (a.) Is the diagnosed Stargardt's disease a congenital or developmental defect or disease? (b.) If the diagnosed Stargardt's disease is a congenital or developmental defect, is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran experienced a superimposed injury or disease in service that resulted in additional disability? (c.) If the Veteran's Stargardt's disease is not a congenital or developmental defect, provide an opinion as to whether any currently or previously diagnosed disability of the bilateral eyes clearly and unmistakably preexisted service, and clearly and unmistakably did not worsen beyond natural progression during service. (d.) Regardless of whether the examiner determines that the Veteran's bilateral eye condition is a congenital defect and/or the examiner concludes that the bilateral eye condition clearly and unmistakably preexisted service, an opinion must also be rendered as to whether the bilateral eye condition is at least as likely as not etiologically related to service. The examiner should elicit a full history from the Veteran and consider the lay statements of record. The Veteran is competent to attest to factual matters of which he has first-hand knowledge, and if there is a medical basis to support or doubt the history provided by the Veteran the examiner should provide a fully reasoned explanation. A rationale for all opinions expressed is requested as adjudicators are precluded from making any medical findings. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Russell P. Veldenz, 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.