Citation Nr: A21019201 Decision Date: 12/02/21 Archive Date: 12/02/21 DOCKET NO. 211026-193603 DATE: December 2, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disorder is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has a bilateral eye disorder that began during or is otherwise related to active service or events therein. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a bilateral eye disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from March 1948 to March 1957. In August 2021, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 20-0996, Decision Review Request: Higher-Level Review (HLR), and requested review of a July 2021 decision. The agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) determined that additional development was needed and processed the request as a supplemental claim. In September 2021, the AOJ issued the decision on appeal, which found that new and relevant evidence had been received to reconsider service connection for a bilateral eye condition and denied the claim based on the evidence of record at the time of that decision. In the October 2021 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal, the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the AOJ decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. In November 2021, the Veteran's representative submitted argument which included reference to medical literature indicating an association between work-related eye injuries and the development of cataracts. The medical literature is considered evidence and was added to the claims file during a period when new evidence was not allowed. As the Board is deciding the claim of service connection for a bilateral eye disorder, it may not consider this evidence in its decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.300. The Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disorder 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). The Veteran contends he has a bilateral eye disorder related to active service. In a June 2021 statement, the Veteran reported that he was a welder during service and was exposed to welding duties almost daily. His eyesight was affected and has deteriorated since service. He stated that he never complained or reported his condition because of his need to work and provide for his family. His glasses have progressively become stronger, and he has been diagnosed with an eye condition. In the September 2021 decision on appeal, the AOJ favorably found that the Veteran had been diagnosed with eye disorders (cataracts, retinopathy, and choroidal nevus); and that the evidence shows a qualifying event, injury, or disease during service. Specifically, the Veteran's DD Form 214 shows he was a pipefitter whose duties included welding. The Board is bound by these favorable findings. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c). Service treatment records show that on physical examination at enlistment in March 1948, the Veteran's vision was reported as 20/20 in both eyes. On physical examination in March 1951, vision was again reported as 20/20. On separation examination in March 1957, the Veteran's eyes were reported as normal and distant vision was 20/20 in both eyes. An undated record indicates refractions as +0.25 right eye and +0.75 left eye. Service treatment records are negative for complaints or findings related to any eye injury. In February 1965, the Veteran underwent a VA medical examination in connection with another claim. Distant vision was reported as 20/20 in both eyes. The Veteran did not wear glasses and eyelids and conjunctiva were clear. Pupils reacted to light and accommodation and movements were normal. VA records show multiple current diagnoses related to the eyes, to include bilateral cataracts, bilateral dry eye syndrome, mild hypertensive retinopathy both eyes, choroidal nevus right eye, and refractive error/presbyopia. In September 2021, the Veteran underwent a VA eye examination. He reported a couple of flash burns during his welding career. The burns bothered him for a period of around 24 hours then resolved and he never sought treatment. Since onset the condition has healed well and there were no current symptoms. He noted his vision has declined slowly over the years and he was diagnosed with cataracts at a routine eye care visit. A small flat nevus was also noted in the right eye on examination. The examiner stated that there was no residual damage from the Veteran's time in service. His visual issues were from cataracts due to aging. In an associated medical opinion, the examiner stated that the claimed condition was less likely than not incurred in or caused by service. In support, he stated that no ocular complications from service were found on current examination, and that the bilateral cataracts are a result of the normal aging process. In November 2021, the representative argued that the above opinion was inadequate because the rationale was brief and the examiner "failed to address the substance of the Veteran's claim regarding extended, sometimes daily, exposure to welding in the course of his duties in the Navy." The representative requested a remand for additional opinion addressing whether flash burns were the type of eye injury that might lead to the development of cataracts, and for a more fulsome discussion of the relevant medical principles as they apply to the Veteran's history. The VA examiner reviewed the claims folder and examined the Veteran. While the stated rationale for the negative opinion is admittedly brief, a review of the entire examination and opinion makes clear that the examiner considered the Veteran's duties as a welder and the impact of any flash burns. That is, he acknowledged the Veteran's reports of sustaining flash burns but noted that the condition had healed well and there was no evidence of a current eye condition related to service. Rather, it was attributed to an alternate etiology aging. Accordingly, the Board finds the VA examination is adequate and thus, remand is not warranted as there is no pre-decisional duty to assist error. On review, the evidence does not show that the Veteran had a chronic eye disorder during service or for many years thereafter. Further, the VA medical opinion states that he does not have any residual eye damage from his time in service and that current conditions were due to aging. The record does not contain probative evidence to the contrary. In making this determination, the Board acknowledges the Veteran's contentions. He is competent to describe his duties as a welder and to report that he experienced flash burns. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) (a lay person is competent to report on that of which he has personal knowledge). Notwithstanding, there is no competent evidence relating his current eye diagnoses to same. The Veteran has not shown that he has the medical training, experience, or expertise to be competent to diagnose an eye disorder or to provide a medical etiology opinion. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As to the Veteran's reports of eye problems beginning during service and progressively worsening, this is not supported by the overall evidence of record. That is, his eyes were reported as normal with 20/20 vision at separation and again on VA examination in 1965. Current diagnoses pertaining to the eyes were not shown for many years following discharge from service. The Veteran's recent lay statements of onset in service are contradicted by the contemporaneous medical evidence made at the time. This inconsistency with the other evidence of record renders the lay evidence insufficiently credible to establish in-service onset. To the extent this claim includes refractive error, the Board notes that refractive errors are considered congenital defects and not compensable disabilities for VA purposes absent superimposed disease or injury resulting in additional disability which is not shown in this case. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(c), 4.9; VAOPGCPREC 82-90; 55 Fed. Reg. 45711 (1990). The preponderance of the evidence is against the claim and the doctrine of reasonable doubt is not for application. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. The claim is denied. LAURA E. COLLINS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Carsten, 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.