Citation Nr: 21005522 Decision Date: 02/01/21 Archive Date: 02/01/21 DOCKET NO. 09-12 851 DATE: February 1, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from February 1964 to February 1966. This claim was most recently before the Board in July 2020, at which time the Board remanded it for additional development. Unfortunately, additional development is needed before the claim can be decided on the merits. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disability is remanded. The Veteran was diagnosed with bilateral cataracts, left eye scarring, and right eye choroidal nexus at a February 2015 VA examination. At August 2015 VA treatment the Veteran was diagnosed with right eye pigmented choroidal lesion and a left eye extramacular scar. The Veteran was diagnosed with bilateral cataracts, a left eye extramacular scar, and right eye choroidal nevus at an August 2016 VA examination. In July 2020 the Board remanded the claim in order for medical opinions to be obtained regarding the likelihood that bilateral cataracts, left eye scarring, and right eye choroidal nevus clearly and unmistakably existed prior to service, were aggravated beyond their natural course during service, and/or are related to service. The opinions were to include discussion of the Veteran’s in-service exposure to cadmium, BG, and BPL. Medical opinions were obtained in August 2020. Unfortunately, the opinions did not include discussion of the in-service exposure to cadmium, BG, and BPL, as instructed in the July 2020 Board remand. Compliance by the Board or the RO with remand instructions is neither optional nor discretionary. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The claim must therefore be remanded in order to obtain opinions regarding exposure to cadmium, BG, and BPL. VA treatment records to November 2020 have been associated with the claims file. The RO should attempt to obtain all relevant VA treatment records dated from November 2020 to the present, while the claim is in remand status. Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain VA treatment records from November 2020 to the present. 2. Obtain an addendum to the August 2020 examiner’s opinion regarding a bilateral eye disability. The Veteran’s claims folder should be provided to the reviewer prior to completion of the opinion. The examiner should offer an opinion on the following: (a) Is it as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s cataracts are related to an in-service injury, event, or disease? The examiner must consider and discuss the Veteran’s in-service exposure to cadmium, bacillus globigii, and beta-propiolactone. (b) Is it as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s left eye scarring is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease? The examiner must consider and discuss the Veteran’s in-service exposure to cadmium, bacillus globigii, and beta-propiolactone. (c) Is it as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s right eye choroidal nevus are related to an in-service injury, event, or disease? The examiner must consider and discuss the Veteran’s in-service exposure to cadmium, bacillus globigii, and beta-propiolactone. The term ‘at least as likely as not’ does not mean within the realm of medical possibility, but rather that the medical evidence both for and against a conclusion is so evenly divided that it is as medically sound to find in favor as it is to find against it. If the examiner cannot provide his or her requested opinion without resorting to speculation, he or she should state why that is the case, including what additional information would be needed, and if stating a non-speculative opinion is beyond the bounds of medical science. Michael J. Skaltsounis Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Scott Shoreman, 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.