Citation Nr: 21070061 Decision Date: 11/22/21 Archive Date: 11/22/21 DOCKET NO. 17-22 537 DATE: November 22, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a right eye injury is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Service treatment records show a left eye abrasion was sustained in December 1980; there are no complaints or injuries pertaining to the right eye during service. 2. The competent medical evidence of record establishes that the Veteran's current cataracts, affecting the bilateral eyes, are not of service origin. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a right eye injury are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from September 1979 to October 1982. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2015 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Service connection for a right eye injury was originally denied in a September 1993 rating decision; the Board declined to reopen that previously denied claim in a December 2014 decision. The Veteran sought to reopen this claim in August 2015; the current appeal stems from such application. Relevant service treatment and personnel records were received in January 2016 and in April 2016. Therefore, the Board will reconsider entitlement to service connection for a right eye injury without regard to the finality of the prior decision. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(1). The Veteran requested a hearing before the Board. Hearings were scheduled and postponed three times due to the health crisis in 2020. His hearing was rescheduled a fourth time for September 2021; however, the Veteran was a no-show. To date, the Veteran has not presented good cause for his failure to appear or requested to reschedule. As such, the Board will proceed with the claim. Additional evidence was received following the issuance of the February 2017 statement of the case and certification of the appeal to the Board. The additional evidence is generally cumulative and redundant of evidence already of record to the issues decided herein, such that neither a supplemental statement of the case (as set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 19.37 (a)), nor a solicitation of a waiver (as set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304 (c)), is necessary. The record does not indicate that the Veteran filed a substantive appeal following the issuance of a statement of the case in February 2017. A Report of General Information, VA Form 27-0820, shows the Veteran called VA in April 2017 and requested a VA Form be sent. It does not appear to have been sent to him, nor is there a record of him submitting a completed form. However, because the RO certified the issue to the Board, and the Board sent the Veteran and his representative a letter indicating this matter had been placed on the Board's docket, the requirement of a substantive appeal is deemed to have been waived. See generally, Percy v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 37, 45 (2009). Service Connection Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Entitlement to service connection for a right eye injury is denied. In a January 2014 Appellant Brief, the Veteran's representative asserted that the Veteran's right eye was injured in service during an altercation in the barracks. The brief indicated that on or around December 1980, a heater pipe was knocked down and he was "stuck" in the right eye and sustained a cut to the cornea. The Veteran asserts his current right eye disorder is due to this event. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current right eye disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. After careful review of the evidence, the Board finds that service connection is not warranted. An entrance examination report dated in September 1979 shows the Veteran entered service with no eye defects. The Veteran's service treatment records show he suffered an abrasion to his left eye in December 1980. An Emergency Care and Treatment report dated December 25, 1981 [the year appears to be an error as related treatment records dated on the same day have a date of 1980] shows the Veteran was working with a stove pipe and felt a foreign body sensation in his left eye. Following physical examination, he was diagnosed with a left eye corneal abrasion. There was no mention of involvement of the right eye. The Veteran was apparently seen in the ophthalmology clinic that same day. The record also indicates that he experienced a foreign body sensation in his left eye while fixing a stove pipe. The consultation also resulted in a finding of 'left eye corneal abrasion.' Both records reflect the Veteran was given ointment and an eye patch that he was to leave on until the next morning. None of the medical records reflects any indication that surgery was required or performed. An examination was conducted in May 1981; the purpose was identified as 'driver.' The Veteran's eyes were determined to have no abnormalities. The report of medical history shows that the only scars observed were on the right foot, left leg, and the side of his neck. The 'summary of defects and diagnoses' did not include any eye disorders. Service treatment records dated throughout 1981 and 1982 do not reflect further complaints or treatment for the left (or right) eye. A September 1982 separation examination report shows the Veteran's eyes were found to be normal. Post-service VA treatment records show the Veteran was seen in March 2006 to establish VA healthcare. He reported a history of having undergone a right eye surgery in 1980. He reported a head injury in 1987. Physical examination showed no eye disorders; there was also no mention of a right eye scar. The clinic note also mentions no cataracts were present. The relevant clinical assessment was 'right eye surgery, postoperative, old, healed.' The Veteran underwent two VA scar examinations in 2012 unrelated to the claimed right eye injury; one in April, the other in October. Both reports incidentally noted the Veteran's right eye had a 1 x 1 cm scar on the eyelid with hyperpigmentation. The scar was not noted to have any other physical effect on the Veteran. Neither examination report provided information regarding how or when the scar was incurred. The Veteran provided relevant testimony in a September 2014 Board hearing. The Veteran testified that while he was climbing out of bed, a servicemember swung a stove pipe and it hit him in the eye. He asserted that due to that injury, his eye developed a cataract. He stated that he received medical treatment from the Kadena Air Base hospital where it was 'stitched up;' an eye patch was placed on it and worn for six months. He indicated there were no records of him being hurt. The Veteran was afforded a VA eye examination in January 2017. The examiner noted service treatment records showed a left eye abrasion in December 1980; vision was 20/20 after treatment. The examiner further acknowledged the Veteran's assertion that his STRs incorrectly identified the left eye as being injured instead of the right eye. On examination, the VA examiner found that the Veteran had a current diagnosis of bilateral cataracts. The examiner noted that there was "no abnormality in either eye other than the age-related cataracts" and that the Veteran "told an examiner in March 2006 that he had right eye surgery in 1980." The examiner noted that the only event in 1980 was the left corneal abrasion that was treated with a patch and healed with no residual. In providing an opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran's claimed right eye injury, the examiner concluded that the claimed condition was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. The examiner reasoned, "[t]here is no diagnosis of a left eye condition other than the age-related cataract. The same is true for the right eye. There is no condition in either eye that involves the cornea from a previous abrasion." In March 2017, the Veteran submitted a lay statement indicating that he had a foreign body in the right eye and that his STRs "incorrectly record foreign body in [the] left eye." He went on to explain that he "initially incurred injury to [his] right eye while in service when a foreign body entered [his] right eye which could not be removed." The Veteran reported that he still had a chronic problem with the right eye. Analysis While the Veteran asserts that he has a right eye disability related to a right eye injury in service, the preponderance of the evidence does not support his claim. For this reason, service connection is not warranted. The service treatment records do not corroborate the assertion of a right eye injury in service. The Veteran has not provided credible lay evidence regarding the nature of the claimed injury to his right eye. Moreover, the competent medical evidence fails to establish a current right (or left) eye injury related to military service, to include the documented left eye injury in December 1980. The Board also acknowledges the Veteran's contention that the wrong eye was identified in his STRs; however, this argument unpersuasive. As noted above, the contemporaneous service treatment records reveal that the injury the Veteran sustained in 1980 involved his left, not right, eye. The treatment records are consistent in that they all identify the left eye (OS) as having been injured and treated. The service treatment records further reflect that the left eye injury occurred in a manner inconsistent to what the Veteran has reported in support of his service connection claims. The contemporaneous records reflect that the Veteran reported that he was working on a stove pipe when he experienced a foreign body sensation in the eye. In contrast, in the Veteran's January 2014 Appellant Brief it was asserted that the right eye was injured during an altercation in which a heater pipe was knocked down and he was "stuck" in the right eye. At the September 2014 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he was climbing out of bed and a servicemember swung a stove pipe and it hit him in the eye. While the lay statements in 2014 are somewhat similar, they both differ from the contemporaneous statements made in 1980 about how the injury occurred. Due to these inconsistencies, the Veteran's current assertions as to which eye was injured in service, and the manner in which such injury occurred, are not credible. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran's post-service medical records show he currently has a scar on his right eyelid. However, no right eyelid scar is noted in the service treatment records, including during the separation examination. The December 1980 treatment notes fail to indicate that the Veteran's skin around his left eye (or the right for that matter) was torn or cut. Significantly, the May 1981 examination report identified all of the Veteran's scars- a right eyelid scar was not identified. The Board finds the current right eyelid scar was not incurred in or as a result of service. Finally, although the Veteran is currently diagnosed with right eye cataracts, the competent medical evidence of record does not relate this disorder to service. The VA examiner who, in January 2017, reviewed the claims file and interviewed and examined the Veteran, has determined that the current bilateral cataracts are not of service origin, but rather are age-related. The opinion is probative because it is based on an accurate medical history and supported by a clear rationale. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). The Veteran has provided no competent medical opinion to the contrary. The Veteran, as a lay person with no medical training or education, is not competent to provide a diagnosis or determine the etiology of his current right eye disorder. The issue is medically complex and requires specialized medical education. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Consequently, the Veteran's lay assertions as to the nature and etiology of his current right eye disorder is afforded no probative weight. In sum, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim. For this reason, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application. Service connection for a right eye injury is not warranted. D. JOHNSON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Telamour, 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.