Citation Nr: 21072418 Decision Date: 12/03/21 Archive Date: 12/03/21 DOCKET NO. 17-18 416 DATE: December 3, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral eye disability (other than service-connected corneal degeneration arcus senilis), to include pinguecula, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 1988 to May 2014. His awards include the Bronze Star Medal and Army Commendation Medal. This matter initially came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from an August 2014 rating decision. In January 2019, June 2020, and August 2021 the Board remanded this matter for further development. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral eye disability (other than service-connected corneal degeneration arcus senilis), to include pinguecula. As an initial matter, the Board is cognizant of the fact that this matter has been in adjudicative status for years and has already been remanded multiple times in the past. Nevertheless, as explained in more detail below, the Board finds that it is necessary to obtain an adequate medical opinion as to whether any current eye disability other than corneal degeneration arcus senilis is related to service, in compliance with its prior remand instructions. Consequently, the Board wishes to assure the Veteran that it would not be remanding this matter again unless it was essential for a full and fair adjudication of his claim. In the August 2021 remand, the Board directed the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) to obtain a medical opinion as to whether any current eye disability other than corneal degeneration arcus senilis is related to service. The opinion provider was instructed to address the diagnoses of hypertensive retinopathy, conjunctival edema, and dry eye syndrome that were provided during a January 2020 VA eye examination. Pursuant to the Board's remand, the Veteran was afforded a VA eye examination in October 2021 and was only diagnosed as having corneal arcus (which is already service-connected). The physician who conducted the examination opined that the Veteran's claimed eye disability was not likely incurred in or caused by service. She reasoned, in pertinent part, that the Veteran did not have any corneal conditions other than the service-connected corneal degeneration arcus senilis and that the hypertensive retinopathy, conjunctival edema, and dry eye syndrome had resolved and were not active during the October 2021 examination. The October 2021 opinion is inadequate because although the examiner reasoned that the Veteran's hypertensive retinopathy, conjunctival edema, and dry eye syndrome were not active at the time of the October 2021 examination, they were present during the January 2020 VA eye examination. In this regard, the requirement for current disability is satisfied if there is evidence of the disability at any time during or approximate to the claim period (since approximately May 2014 in this case), even if the disability is subsequently in remission or has completely resolved. See Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 293 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2008). In light of the above, a remand is necessary to obtain a new opinion as to whether any current eye disability other than corneal degeneration arcus senilis (to include hypertensive retinopathy, conjunctival edema, and dry eye syndrome) is related to service. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to identify the location and name of any VA or private medical facility where he has received treatment for eye disability, to include the dates of any such treatment. Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for all records of his treatment for eye disability from any sufficiently identified private treatment provider from whom records have not already been obtained. Make two requests for any authorized records, unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. 2. After all efforts have been exhausted to obtain and associate with the claims file any additional treatment records, obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether any eye disability other than corneal degeneration arcus senilis experienced by the Veteran since approximately May 2014 (including, but not limited to, hypertensive retinopathy, conjunctival edema, dry eye syndrome, and any pinguecula) at least as likely as not (1) began during service; or (2) is related to an injury or disease during service, including the eye problems documented in his service treatment records. (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) The clinician must provide reasons for each opinion given. In this regard, the clinician is advised that the Veteran has been diagnosed as having hypertensive retinopathy, conjunctival edema, and dry eye syndrome during the claim period (see e.g., the report of the January 2020 VA eye examination), even if any of these disabilities are in remission or have resolved. Jonathan Hager Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Elwood, 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.