Citation Nr: 21006524 Decision Date: 02/04/21 Archive Date: 02/04/21 DOCKET NO. 14-28 973 DATE: February 4, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for blurred vision, to include as secondary to service-connected diabetes is denied. FINDING OF FACT The competent, probative evidence is against finding that the Veteran’s blurred vision, to include as secondary to service-connected diabetes began during active service, or are otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for blurred vision, to include as secondary to service-connected diabetes have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1154, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307 REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1963 to July 1966. The Board remanded the claim in June 2020. There has been substantial compliance with the remand and the Board will proceed with adjudication. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Entitlement to service connection for blurred vision, to include as secondary to service-connected diabetes The Veteran contends that his blurred vision was caused or aggravated by his service to include as due to his service-connected diabetes. 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 present disability. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed.Cir.2009); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999). The Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs), to include his separation examination, are silent for any complaints, treatment or diagnosis during service for any foot disabilities. The Veteran is currently service-connected for diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease. Because the Veteran has not raised, and the record does not reasonably raise, entitlement to direct service connection, the Board’s adjudication will consider only entitlement to secondary service connection. On VA examination in February 2020, the examiner diagnosed anterior basement dystrophy (ABMD) bilateral and Pseudophakia bilateral. The examiner explained that “ABMD is a corneal condition in which the basement membrane of the cornea becomes thickened. The location of this on the [V]eteran's right eye can cause decreased visual acuity. The left eye is not significant enough to cause a reduction in acuity.” The examiner then explained that the posterior chamber intraocular lens replaced the cataract that caused a reduction in visual acuity. The examiner opined ABMD is not caused by or a result of diabetes mellitus and Pseudophakia is not caused by or a result of diabetes mellitus II. In support of the opinion, the examiner stated, ABMD occurs independently from his diabetic condition. ABMD is a corneal dystrophy that causes swelling in the cornea which can cause blurred vision. Pseudophakia is the result of cataract surgery. This procedure allows the veteran to see more clearly. While the veteran's cataracts could be aggravated by the veteran's diabetes this was resolved with cataract surgery (pseudophakia). The Veteran’s April 2009 treatment records make a reference that that he had lens replacement in both eyes using a YAG implant. There are also references that his right eye was blurry following the surgery and that he was possibly going to have laser correction to fix his YAG implant. Pursuant to the Board’s June 2020 remand, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) sent the Veteran a July 2020 letter requesting information to assist in obtaining ophthalmology records pertaining to the November 2009 laser surgery. The Veteran did not respond to the AOJ’s request. Pursuant to the Board’s June 2020 remand, the Veteran was given a VA examination in December 2020 to address whether the Veteran’s blurred vision was aggravated by his service-connected diabetes. The examiner reported that after the Veteran’s cataract surgery, he developed vision in each eye (OU). He had cataracts removed OU and intraocular lens placed. YAG laser removal of posterior capsule on his right eye (OD) was performed, Blurry vision OU, 2010, veteran has noted blurry vision and dizziness associated with fluctuating blood sugars; however no ocular etiology has been determined and no chronic diagnosis such as diabetic retinopathy has been established; Dermatochalasis, OU, 2020, veteran has increased laxity in upper eyelids, does not cause veteran issues at this time. The examiner specifically noted that the record does not include the laser procedure discussed in the Board’s June 2020 remand. The examiner offered a negative opinion that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s diabetes caused or aggravated his blurred vision. The examiner’s rationale was The anterior basement membrane dystrophy OU is not related to the service-connected diabetes and would not have been aggravated by the service-connected diabetes. Pseudophakia OU would not be aggravated by a service condition, as it is a status post cataract surgery. Dermatochalasis OU would not be aggravated by a service condition as it is a[n] age-related disorder. The Board finds that the competent probative evidence of record is against the claim for blurred vision disability, to include as secondary to service-connected diabetes. The Board finds February 2020 and June 2020 VA medical opinions probative that there is no relation or nexus between the Veteran diagnosed eye conditions and the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities. In summary, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Veteran is not entitled to service connection for a blurred vision disability. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Thus, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application. M.E. Larkin Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. G. Perkins, 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.