Citation Nr: 21005426 Decision Date: 02/01/21 Archive Date: 02/01/21 DOCKET NO. 12-28 876 DATE: February 1, 2021 ORDER Service connection for blurred vision with pain is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Refractive errors are not disabilities for VA compensation purposes. 2. The Veteran does not have a current vision or eye disability other than a refractive error of the eye and service-connected blepharitis with dry eye. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for blurred vision with pain are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 4.9. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1982 to September 2009. This matter come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2010 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) denying entitlement to service connection for an eye condition, among other issues. In March 2015, April 2017, and August 2020, the Board remanded the claims for further development. The appeal is now back before the Board. 1. Service connection for blurred vision with pain is denied. The Veteran contends that she has a vision disorder, other than service-connected blepharitis with dry eye, related to environmental exposure during her active service. Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995), aff’d per curiam, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (table). Pertinent to a claim for service connection, such a determination requires a finding of a current disability that is related to an injury or disease in service. Watson v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 309 (1993); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992); Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141, 143 (1992). Under applicable regulation, the term disability means impairment in earning capacity resulting from diseases and injuries and their residual conditions. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1; Hunt v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 292, 296 (1991); Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995); Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (the term disability as used in 38 U.S.C. § 1110 refers to the functional impairment of earning capacity, not the underlying cause of said disability, and held that pain alone can serve as a functional impairment and therefore qualify as a disability). For purposes of entitlement to VA compensation benefits, the law provides that refractive errors of the eyes are congenital or developmental defects and are not a disease or injury within the meaning of applicable legislation. In the absence of superimposed disease or injury, service connection may not be allowed for refractive error of the eyes, including myopia, presbyopia, and astigmatism, even if visual acuity decreased in service, as this is not a disease or injury within the meaning of applicable legislation relating to service connection. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(c), 4.9. Thus, VA regulations specifically prohibit service connection for refractive errors of the eyes unless such defect was subjected to a superimposed disease or injury which created additional disability. See VAOPGCPREC 82-90 (July 18, 1990) (cited at 55 Fed. Reg. 45,711) (Oct. 30, 1990). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). Service treatment records show the Veteran complained of stinging in the right eye for two to three days without trauma in May 2006. The diagnoses were presbyopia and keratitis. An August 2006 note indicated the Veteran’s keratitis was resolving. In an October 2007 note, the Veteran complained of eye pain, and the diagnosis was conjunctival hyperemia. The provider noted the Veteran complained of recurring right eye pain and redness, worse during the day and that the diagnosis was dry eye syndrome. In an April 2009 retirement medical history report, the Veteran reported a bout of pain in the right eye and losing of far vision. The provider noted the Veteran’s right eye pain had for the most part resolved. The retirement examination indicated the Veteran’s eyes were normal. The Veteran was afforded a VA eye conditions examination in August 2017. The examiner reported a diagnosis of dry eye syndrome since October 2007. The Veteran stated that in 2005 she suffered from red eyes and was prescribed lubricant eye drops by a physician and that dryness and redness persist. The examiner stated that the Veteran’s decrease in visual acuity or other visual impairment was not attributable to her dry eye syndrome. The examiner noted that the Veteran remembers an episode of ocular pain in 2005. The examiner noted this might actually have occurred in 2006, as there is a report stating there was KPS/SPK of the cornea, which is a common finding in dry eye syndrome. According to both the Veteran’s accounts and the records, the examiner found dry eye syndrome first manifested around 2006. Her current symptoms and findings are also typical for dry eye syndrome and she stated that it progressed since onset. The Veteran was afforded another VA eye conditions examination in March 2020. The examiner reported a diagnosis of dry eye. The Veteran complained of intermittent dry and painful eyes since 2003. After a physical examination, the examiner noted that for the Veteran’s claimed condition of blurred vision with pain in right and left eyes there is no diagnosis because there are no findings, signs or symptoms to support a diagnosis. The examiner indicated that dry eye is commonly secondary to hormonal changes and there was no activity in service nor out of service which would have increased dryness. Post-service VA treatment records are consistent with the VA examinations of record. As referenced above, the threshold criterion for establishing eligibility for service connection is evidence of a current disability subject to service connection. However, with regard to the Veteran’s service connection claim for blurred vision, she has not been diagnosed with an eye disorder that is subject to service connection other than her service-connected blepharitis with dry eye. Refractive errors, which were noted in service and in her August 2017 and March 2020 VA examination reports, are considered congenital defects for which service connection is not warranted absent a superimposed in-service disease or injury that resulted in additional disability. There is no indication that the Veteran incurred an in-service disease or injury, to include claimed environmental exposures in service, that was superimposed on her refractive errors and resulted in additional disability. As such, service connection for her diagnosed refractive errors, claimed as blurred vision, is not warranted. To the extent that the Veteran asserts that she had pain in her eyes due to service, the Board recognizes that the Veteran had complaints of pain in service in May 2006 and October 2007. However, the Veteran reported her right eye pain had, for the most part, resolved on service separation examination. In an October 2020 statement, the Veteran also stated that the extreme pain in her right eye had, for the most part, subsided. The March 2020 VA examiner found no diagnosis related to the Veteran’s complained of blurred vision with pain. Brammer v. Derwinski, supra. Furthermore, there is insufficient lay or medical evidence to suggest that any eye pain reaches the level of functional impairment of earning capacity. See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Wait v. Wilkie, 2020 U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 1609. While, the Veteran is competent to report symptoms and experiences observable by her senses, she is not competent to diagnose an eye disorder because that requires specialized medical education, training, and diagnostic testing. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Given the lack of evidence of a current disability subject to service connection related to the Veteran’s claimed blurred vision with pain at any time proximate to the pendency of her claim, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against such service connection claim. Accordingly, there is no reasonable doubt to resolve on the Veteran’s behalf, and service connection for blurred vision with pain is not warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, supra. KRISTY L. ZADORA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. M. Donahue Boushehri, 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.