Citation Nr: A21018933 Decision Date: 11/29/21 Archive Date: 11/29/21 DOCKET NO. 191216-49808 DATE: November 29, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for retina, eye disease, and vision impairment is remanded. Service connection for left eye disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1998 to October 1999 and January 2003 to April 2003. A March 2018 rating decision denied service connection for left eye disability under the legacy system. In January 2019, the appellant opted into the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), by submitting a Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP) election form and selecting the higher-level review option. The agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issued an AMA rating decision in August 2019. In May 2019, the Veteran filed a separate claim for service connection for retina disability, which was denied by a September 2019 rating decision under the AMA. A December 2019 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal, appealed both August and September 2019 rating decisions and elected the Direct Review option; therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decisions on appeal. 38C.F.R. §20.301. A November 2020 Board decision, in pertinent part, denied service connection for left eye disability and retina, eye disease, and vision impairment. The Veteran appealed these decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In June 2021, the Court issued an order that partially vacated the Board's decision and remanded the matters on appeal for adjudication consistent with the Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) by the parties. 1. Service connection for retina, eye disease, and vision impairment 2. Service connection for left eye disability The June 2021 JMPR found the November 2020 Board decision stated there was no medical opinion of record linking the currently diagnosed disability to the Veteran's service. However, a February 2018 DBQ stated his "retinal scarring and subsequent vision loss is consistent with post-traumatic retinal scarring. I believe he needs further evaluation and proper recommendation for service connection based on the retinal problem and subsequent vision loss." Accordingly, the appeals are remanded to correct a duty to assist error that occurred prior to the August 2019 and September 2019 rating decisions on appeal. The February 2018 medical opinion stated the Veteran needed further evaluation and proper recommendation for service connection based on the retinal problem and subsequent vision loss. Additional examination or medical opinion was not obtained. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for reported left eye and vision disabilities. If the clinician determines any additional testing is necessary, it should be provided. The clinician is asked to answer: (a.) Identify any left eye or vision disabilities found during the appeal period. (b.) For each disability identified, is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) the disability began during service or is related to service, to include a 1999 head injury? See May 1999 Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status. The clinician should discuss the February 2018 VA examiner finding "his retinal scarring and subsequent vision loss is consistent with posttraumatic retinal scarring." If an opinion cannot be given without resorting to speculation, the examiner should explain why and state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). KELLI A. KORDICH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Winkler, 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.