Citation Nr: 21074550 Decision Date: 12/15/21 Archive Date: 12/15/21 DOCKET NO. 15-22 136 DATE: December 15, 2021 REMANDED The issue of entitlement to service connection for a left eye condition is remanded. VETERAN'S CONTENTIONS The Veteran contends that while in service she assisted with office clean-up without the benefit of personal protective equipment. During that time, fiberglass entered her eyes. That night, the Veteran contends, her eyes began burning and watering and were difficult to keep closed for extended periods of time. The Veteran contends that she sought care in the emergency room the following morning when she was diagnosed with a corneal abrasion. Since then, the Veteran asserts that she experiences itching and watery eyes that impact her vision, and sensitivity to sunlight. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the Marine Corps from August 2008 to May 2011. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2014 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). There was a January 2021 Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) and the transcript is of record. This matter was previously before the Board in March and July 2021, both times it was remanded for further development. The Board finds that the RO again did not substantially comply with the Board's remand directives regarding the requested medical opinion. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The claim was previously expanded from the issue of entitlement to service connection for a right eye corneal abrasion to a claim of entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye condition. See 7/29/2021 BVA Decision. The Board notes that the Veteran has since been service connected for right eye dry eye syndrome. See 10/15/2021 Rating Decision. However, while the previous Board remand directives called for an addendum opinion regarding whether the Veteran's eye condition, to include dry eye syndrome, was causally related to her active service, specifically her exposure to fiberglass fragments, the examiner did not do so. Instead, the examiner provided a negative nexus opinion noting that fiberglass injury to the right eye would not result in dry eye syndrome to the left eye. See 10/13/2021 C&P Examination. The Veteran explicitly contended that both of her eyes were exposed to fiberglass debris, and while there is only documentation of corneal abrasion to the right eye, the left eye has been itchy, watery, and sensitive to light ever since that exposure. See 1/13/2021 Hearing Transcript. An adequate opinion must describe the disability in sufficient detail such that the Board's evaluation of the claimed disability will be a fully informed one, and must contain both a conclusion with supporting data, and a reasoned medical explanation connecting the two. See Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 123 (2007); Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 301 (2008). Thus, in addition to being noncompliant with the Board remand directives, the opinion was conclusory and did not provide a sufficient rationale. Remand for an additional addendum opinion is necessary. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Forward the entire claims file and this Remand to the examiner who conducted the October 12, 2021 VA examination, if available. If that examiner is unavailable, forward the entire claims file and this Remand to an appropriate clinician for an addendum opinion. Following a review of the claims file, the examiner should provide an opinion regarding whether: It is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's left eye condition (including dry eye syndrome) is causally related to her active service, specifically including as a result of exposure to fiberglass fragments. If the examiner determines that the current dry eye signs and symptoms are unrelated to the Veteran's history of exposure to fiberglass fragments, he or she should clearly explain the reasons for this conclusion. For the purpose of providing the opinion requested, please accept as valid the Veteran's statements regarding her history of left eye exposure to fiberglass and immediate resulting symptomology, and the continuity of those signs and symptoms thereafter. A complete rationale for the examiner's opinion should be provided, citing to specific evidence of record, as necessary. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resort to speculation, the examiner must 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), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). If the inability to provide an opinion without resorting to speculation is due to a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), the AOJ should develop the claim to the extent it is necessary to cure any such deficiency. If the inability to provide an opinion is due to the examiner's lack of requisite knowledge or training, then the AOJ should obtain an opinion from a medical professional who has the knowledge and training needed to render such an opinion. S.C. Krembs Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Z. Sloley, 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.