Citation Nr: 21008755
Decision Date: 02/17/21	Archive Date: 02/17/21

DOCKET NO. 14-34 169A
DATE: February 17, 2021

REMANDED

Service connection for an eye disability is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from June 1966 to June 1968, and died in April 2014. The Appellant is his surviving spouse. This case returns to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) after a remand to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) in May 2018. 

On remand, the AOJ granted service connection for ischemic heart disease and diabetes mellitus type II. See April 2020 rating decision. These issues are no longer before the Board. Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Service connection for an eye disability

The Veteran’s appeal regarding service connection for an eye disability (claimed as blindness) was pending at the time of his death. He asserted this disability was secondary to his now service-connected diabetes.

In July 2012, a VA examiner diagnosed the Veteran with bilateral mature cataracts. The 2012 examiner was unable to determine whether the cataracts were secondary to diabetes because his retina could not be viewed. No other opinion on etiology was rendered. 

After the Board’s remand, a May 2020 examiner opined that the eye disability was less likely than not proximately due to or caused by diabetes. The 2020 examiner did not provide any medical rationale in support of this conclusion, or offer an opinion on whether diabetes aggravated the Veteran’s cataracts beyond their natural progress. The May 2020 opinion is therefore inadequate. See El Amin v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 136, 140 (2013); Monzingo v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2012). Another remand for an addendum opinion is warranted. 

The Board by this remand makes no determination, expressed or implied, concerning the credibility of any statements on file.

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:

1. Obtain an addendum opinion on the etiology of the Veteran’s bilateral cataracts. The examiner must address the following:

(a.) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s cataracts were proximately due to his service-connected diabetes mellitus type II? 

(b.) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s cataracts were aggravated beyond their natural clinical course by his service-connected diabetes mellitus type II?

2. Review the medical opinion above to ensure substantial compliance with the Board’s directives. Take any necessary corrective action.

3. Readjudicate the claim. If it remains denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case and allow the Appellant the opportunity to respond. Then return to the Board for further appellate review.

 

 

KELLI A. KORDICH

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	D.Z. Wall, Associate 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.