Citation Nr: 21007070 Decision Date: 02/08/21 Archive Date: 02/08/21 DOCKET NO. 09-07 979 DATE: February 8, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an eye disability, other than keratoconjunctivitis sicca with pterygium, to include as secondary to the Veteran’s service-connected keratoconjunctivitis sicca with pterygium, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from December 1986 to March 2007. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a June 2008 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board notes that, in order to best reflect the specific issues on appeal and the evidence of record, it has slightly recharacterized the issue above. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009). After reviewing the record, the Board finds another VA examination is required. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in August 2016. The Board remanded this case in September 2016 for an addendum opinion. The addendum opinion was completed in July 2017. The Veteran was also afforded a medical expert opinion from VA Medical Center (VAMC) White River Junction in April 2018 and an addendum opinion from January 2020. In the April 2018 opinion, the medical expert stated that blepharitis is a condition present throughout a person’s life and that the Veteran’s blepharitis not only aggravated his keratoconjunctivitis sicca but also may be the cause. In the January 2020 addendum opinion, the medical expert stated it is less likely than not that the Veteran’s service connected keratoconjunctivitis sicca was aggravated by the blepharitis. However, the Veteran is not currently service connected for blepharitis. The Board finds that the expert medical opinion and addendum opinion did not adequately address questions submitted regarding direct service connection. Thus, a new VA examination is required to determine the Veteran’s eye conditions and their etiology. Additionally, in April 2020, this case was remanded for the RO to review evidence submitted by the Veteran in March 2020 because the Veteran did not waive his rights to have the evidence reviewed by the RO prior to appellate review by the Board. The May 2020 Supplemental Statement of the Case did not list the statement submitted by the Veteran in March 2020. Accordingly, after the aforementioned development is completed, the RO must review the claim, including the March 2020 statement. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. After completing any additional needed development, afford the Veteran a new VA eye examination to ascertain the nature and etiology of any eye disabilities, other than keratoconjunctivitis sicca with pterygium. The Veteran’s entire claims file, including all Board remands and statements submitted by the Veteran, must be made available for review by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. The examiner must review the claims file, and this fact must be noted in the accompanying medical report. Based upon a review of the claims file, the examiner is requested to provide opinions as to the following: a.) Identify all eye disabilities demonstrated during the appeal period or in proximity to the claim, even if currently resolved; b.) For any diagnosed eye disability, provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that such diagnosis, other than keratoconjunctivitis sicca with pterygium, was incurred in or is otherwise attributable to service. c.) For any diagnosed eye disability, provide an opinion as to whether is it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any of the Veteran’s eye conditions were caused or aggravated by his service-connected keratoconjunctivitis sicca with pterygium. The examiner must provide a comprehensive report including complete rationales for all opinions and conclusions reached 2. If the claim remains denied, furnish a Supplemental Statement of the Case addressing all new evidence, including the statement submitted by the Veteran in March 2020. A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Hetman 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.