Citation Nr: 21075288 Decision Date: 12/20/21 Archive Date: 12/20/21 DOCKET NO. 14-31 097A DATE: December 20, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an eye condition, to include loss of vision, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1974 to February 1994. This case comes to the Board of Veteran's Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2013 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In June 2013, the Veteran disagreed with this rating decision. In September 2017, the Veteran attended a Board hearing held by a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). The transcript of that hearing is of record. However, the VLJ who conducted that hearing is no longer available to participate in this decision. The Veteran was put on notice of this fact in an October 2021 letter, and was provided an opportunity to request another Board hearing. That letter also informed the Veteran that if he did not respond within 30 days, the Board would proceed with his appeal. The Veteran did not respond to the letter within this time frame. The Board has considered the transcript of that hearing as evidence in making its decision. This case was previously before the Board in June 2018 and May 2020 when it was remanded for additional development. Unfortunately, for the reasons discussed below, another remand is required. See Stegall v. West, 11. Vet. App. 268 (1998). During the period of the appeal, in an August 2021 Rating Decision, the RO granted service connection for a back disability. Therefore, this claim for service connection has been resolved and is no longer before the Board on appeal. See generally Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Barrera v. Gober, 122 F.3d 1030 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Entitlement to service connection for an eye condition, to include loss of vision, is remanded. In the May 2020 remand, the Board ordered the RO to obtain an addendum opinion as to whether the Veteran's eye condition was directly related to active service. Additionally, the record reflects that the Veteran was also diagnosed with astigmatism and presbyopia, both of which are refractive errors of the eye that are congenital in nature and not disabilities for VA purposes. However, if the Veteran experienced a superimposed disease or injury, then service connection is possible. The RO was also ordered to obtain an opinion as to whether the Veteran's astigmatism and/or presbyopia was subject to any superimposed disease or injury in service that created an additional disability. In a June 2020 VA opinion, the examiner opined that the Veteran's eye condition was not related to service. The VA examiner never opined whether the Veteran's congenital condition was subject to any superimposed disease or injury in service. Additionally, the VA examiner also opined that the Veteran's eye condition was not proximately caused by or due to his service-connected disabilities. However, no opinion as to whether his eye condition was aggravated by a service-connected disability was given. Because of this, a new VA opinion is necessary to determine whether the Veteran's astigmatism and/or presbyopia was subject to any superimposed disease or injury in service that crated an additional disability. Additionally, a new VA opinion is necessary to determine whether the Veteran's eye condition was caused or aggravated by his service-connected disabilities. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. In accordance with the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(1), contact the Veteran for additional information about treatment for his condition and make efforts to obtain all VA and private treatment records concerning this claim. 2. Arrange for the Veteran's file to be forwarded to a VA examiner for a clarifying addendum opinion regarding the likely cause of the Veteran's eye condition. The examiner or consulting physician must review the entire record (including all updated records obtained pursuant to the above development order). A detailed explanation (rationale) is requested for all opinions provided. The examiner is asked to address the following questions: Whether any diagnosed eye condition is a congenital defect or a disease. If the examiner determines that the diagnosed eye condition is a congenital defect, the examiner should render an opinion as to whether the Veteran experienced a superimposed disease or injury during service that caused additional disability to the congenital defect. If the examiner determines that the diagnosed eye condition is a congenital disease, the examiner should render an opinion as to whether there is clear and unmistakable evidence that it was not aggravated beyond the normal progression. Clear and unmistakable evidence includes medical facts and principles which may be considered to determine whether the increase is due to the natural progress of the condition. If the Veteran's diagnosed eye condition is not a congenital defect or disease, the examiner should opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's eye condition was caused OR aggravated by a service-connected disability. 3. A detailed explanation (rationale) is requested for all opinions provided. (By law, the Board is not permitted to rely on any conclusion that is not supported by a thorough explanation. Providing an opinion or conclusion without a thorough explanation will delay processing of the claim and may also result in a clarification being requested). David Gratz Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Abrams, 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.