Citation Nr: 21071425 Decision Date: 11/30/21 Archive Date: 11/30/21 DOCKET NO. 15-13 224 DATE: November 30, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a bilateral eye disability, other than service-connected right eye pterygium, is denied. Service connection for a urinary disability is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The preponderance of the evidence weighs against a finding that a bilateral eye disability is related to service. 2. The preponderance of the evidence weighs against a finding that a urinary disability is related to service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a bilateral eye disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 2. The criteria for service connection for a urinary disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from June 1966 to December 1985. The Veteran appeared for a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in August 2015. The hearing transcript is associated with the claims file. The Veteran initially claimed service connection for urethritis. The Veteran's claim has been recharacterized to encompass any urinary disability. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1(2009) (holding that when a claimant makes a claim, he is seeking service connection for symptoms regardless of how those symptoms are diagnosed or labeled); see also Brokowski v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 79 (2009). The Board remanded the issues on appeal in May 2021 for additional development. That development has been accomplished, and the appeal is ready for adjudication. 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). Service connection for an eye disability. The Veteran contends that he has a bilateral eye disability which is related to an incident during service where he was hit by a bus and hit his head. See August 2015 hearing testimony. A June 1967 service treatment record notes the Veteran was hit by bus and had swelling to forehead and lightheadedness. An August 1981 treatment note includes a prescription for glasses due to headache with slightly blurred distance vision. In August 2015, the Veteran testified before the Board. During his hearing, the Veteran testified that he began to have vision problems in January 1978 when he was serving in the naval recruiting district. He stated that he experienced blurred vision and that while he saw a doctor at the time, he could not recall what the doctor told him. the Veteran stated that he was later seen for cataracts in 2003. He asserted that he thought his cataracts most likely started in service. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has current diagnoses of eye disorders other than right eye pterygium, and evidence shows that an injury to the head occurred, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that these eye disorders are related to that injury or are otherwise related to service. In support of this conclusion, the Board notes that a March 2021 examiner found that the Veteran's eye disabilities, other than right eye pterygium, were less likely than not incurred in or caused by service. In so finding, the examiner noted that dry eye syndrome symptoms were not reported until three to four years prior and service treatment records did not mention such. Similarly, the Veteran was unaware of cataracts until an examination which noted them two months prior. The examiner further noted that regarding posterior vitreous detachment, the Veteran did not notice any floaters associated with such until ten years ago after the Veteran's discharge and again such was not noted in service. An additional opinion was sought because the March 2021 examiner did not address the Veteran's contention that his eye disabilities were due to a documented in-service accident. In September 2021, the Veteran's claims file was again reviewed in order to determine the etiology of any diagnosed eye disability. Following review of the Veteran's records, the examiner determined that the Veteran's dry eye syndrome, cataracts, pterygium of the right eye and posterior vitreous detachment was less likely than nor related to service. It was noted that the Veteran didn't notice dry eyes until three to four years prior and no record of such in service, and that the Veteran was not shown to have cataracts until two months prior. It was noted that there was documentation in the Veteran's electronic medical records that he had a pterygium of the right eye in August 31, 1972, but that the Veteran didn't notice any floaters until 10 years after he got out of service. The examiner further explained that dry eye syndrome, cataracts and posterior vitreous detachment were less likely than not caused by the Veteran's being hit by a bus and hitting his head during service. The examiner stated that the Veteran's diagnoses are more likely than not normal age-related changes. While the Veteran may believe that his present eye disorders, other than right eye pterygium are related to service, in this case he is not competent to provide a nexus opinion regarding this issue. The issue is medically complex, and requires medical expertise the Veteran is not shown to possess. Therefore, it is outside the competence of the Veteran. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Kahana v. Shinseki, 24. Vet. App. 428 (2011). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the findings of the Veteran's examiners. Thus, the evidence of record weighs against a finding that the Veteran has a bilateral eye disorder which is related to his service. Thus, service connection for a bilateral eye disability other than service-connected right eye pterygium must be denied. Service connection for a urinary disability. Service treatment records include an April 1969 treatment record in which the Veteran reported burning while urinating, a diagnosis of acute urethritis due to gonococcus was provided. The Veteran reported urethral discharge and burning on urination later that month. The Veteran was shown to have had gonococcal urethritis with no sequalae at the time of his examination for separation in October 1985. In August 2015, the Veteran testified at his Board hearing that he could not remember if he had problems with uritis in service. The Veteran was examined in March 2021 in order to determine the etiology of his claimed urinary disorder. Following examination of the Veteran and review of the Veteran's claims file, the examiner concluded the likeliest cause of voiding dysfunction is a prostate etiology but this cannot be determined with certainty from the available information. Thereafter, an additional opinion was sought as to the Veteran's urinary disability in September 2021. Following review of the record a physician in general practice, obstetrics, and gynecology, explained that there was no evidence of the Veteran's current urinary tract condition during service. Instead, the Veteran was treated for gonococcal urethritis in 1969 but there was no evidence of ongoing urethritis and the Veteran served for 16 years after his gonococcal urethritis and it was unlikely he would not have reported ongoing symptoms. \ The examiner further noted that the Veteran was not found to have urethritis at discharge nor did he report painful urination or other signs of urinary dysfunction and that it was highly unlikely a significant urinary condition would have gone unnoted or unreported. It was further noted that the Veteran's treatment records noted age related benign prostatic hyperplasia (prostate gland enlargement) and that his symptoms were consistent with such. The examiner stated that benign prostatic hyperplasia was less likely than not due to or related to a single incident of sexually transmitted infection while in service therefore it was less likely that the Veteran's urinary symptoms which were likely due instead to benign prostatic hyperplasia were due to service. As above, the Veteran is not shown to have the required medical expertise to provide a competent nexus between the Veteran's present urinary symptoms and his service. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Kahana v. Shinseki, 24. Vet. App. 428 (2011). Thus, the competent evidence indicates that the Veteran's urinary symptoms are more likely due to age and benign prostatic hyperplasia than service. Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the findings of the Veteran's examiners and must find that the evidence is against the Veteran's claim. Thus, service connection for a urinary disorder must be denied. KELLI A. KORDICH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board G. Slovick, 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.