Citation Nr: 21069062 Decision Date: 11/17/21 Archive Date: 11/17/21 DOCKET NO. 11-27 271 DATE: November 17, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from October 1970 to November 1972. The Veteran is the recipient of a Combat Infantry Badge, among numerous other awards. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2009 rating decision by an Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The matter was denied by the Board in March 2018. The Veteran appealed the Board's decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans claims (Court). The Court remanded the matter to the Board for action consistent with the JMR. Specifically, the matter was remanded because the parties found that the Board relied on an inadequate VA medical opinion which was based on an inaccurate factual premise which was found to have no probative value. The issue was remanded by the Board previously, most recently in May 2021, for additional development. The Board finds that there was not substantial compliance with its May 2021 remand orders and another remand of the issue is necessary. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). In its most recent remand, the Board determined that an addendum opinion was needed which clearly specified both whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's eye disability was caused by service, as well as whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's eye disability was aggravated by any of his service-connected disabilities. A full rationale was requested for both opinions. The opinion furnished by the VA examiner determined that the Veteran's conditions of cataracts and macular degeneration, left eye, were less likely than not from service. The VA examiner opined, "The cataracts that the Veteran has been diagnosed with are age-related and thus it is less likely than not that the Veteran's current left eye condition, to include cataracts, macular degeneration and dermatochalasis, was incurred in or is otherwise etiologically related to the Veteran's active duty service as the dermatochalasis is also most likely related to age." This opinion does not comply with the Board's remand directives. On remand, an opinion must be provided as to the etiology of any currently diagnosed eye disorder to comply with the Board's prior remand instructions. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain a VA opinion that addresses the nature and etiology of the Veteran's right and left eye disabilities, including cataracts, macular degeneration, and dermatochalasis. If the VA examiner determines another examination is necessary, one should be scheduled. a) The examiner must opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's current right and/or left eye disorders, including cataracts, macular degeneration, and dermatochalasis, were incurred in, aggravated by, or are otherwise etiologically related to the Veteran's active duty service. The examiner must consider the Veteran's February 1972 in-service injury and treatment for a hyphema and glaucoma. See December 2019 STR, pp. 1-11, 16-26. The Veteran's in-service left eye injury, including lacerations to the area around the eye, should be discussed specifically. b) The examiner must opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's right and/or left eye disability is caused or aggravated (permanently worsened beyond its natural progression) by a service-connected condition, including diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery disease, and unspecified trauma and stressor related disorder, OR any medications used to manage these disabilities. The examiner must address the medical literature referenced in the Veteran's February 2018 appellate brief. See February 2018 Appellate Brief, pp. 1-2. The Veteran's treatment with aspirin should be discussed specifically. A full and complete rationale for each opinion requested is required. 2. Then, readjudicate the remanded issue. If the benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran should be provided with a supplemental statement of the case. The case should then be returned to the Board for appellate review if otherwise in order. WILLIAM H. DONNELLY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Margaret M. Lunger, 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.