Citation Nr: 21010126 Decision Date: 02/24/21 Archive Date: 02/24/21 DOCKET NO. 15-23 973 DATE: February 24, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an eye disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service in the United States Air Force from June 1983 to June 1987. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2014 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at a videoconference Board hearing in October 2019; a transcript of that hearing is of record. This matter was subsequently remanded by the Board in January 2020. Entitlement to service connection for an eye disability is remanded. The Veteran asserts service connection for an eye disability, to include as due to in-service blunt force trauma and secondary to his service-connected disabilities. The Veteran underwent an examination for his eye disabilities (cataracts and dry eyes) in October 2020. While the examiner provided negative direct and secondary (proximately due to and aggravation) opinions for his dry eyes and cataracts, the examiner did not address the Veteran’s retinal holes which had been diagnosed during the period on appeal (October 2013 onward). See 3/14/2014, Medical Treatment Record – Government Facility, at p. 23. As such, an additional addendum or examination is warranted to address whether the diagnosed retinal holes are related to service. This matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records. All requests and responses for the records must be documented. If any identified records cannot be obtained, notify the Veteran of the missing records, the efforts taken, and any further efforts that will be made by VA to obtain such evidence, and allow him an opportunity to provide the missing records. 2. After associating any treatment records with the claims file, obtain an addendum opinion, or if necessary, schedule the Veteran for an appropriate examination to determine the etiology of the Veteran’s eye disabilities. The claims file is to be made available to the examiner and reviewed in conjunction with the examination. -- Identify any eye disorder during the period on appeal (October 2013 onward), to include retinal holes. See 3/14/2014, Medical Treatment Record – Government Facility, at p. 23. If the examiner disagrees with the diagnosis of retinal holes, he or she should clearly and thoroughly explain why. Then, regarding the Veteran’s eye disability, address: (a.) For each identified eye disorder, state whether, it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that his disability was caused by a disease or injury in service, to include blunt force trauma to his head? See 8/26/1987, STR –Medical, at p. 30. (b.) If no, is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s disability was either 1) proximately due to OR 2) aggravated by any service-connected disability? The term “aggravated” refers to a worsening of the underlying condition beyond the natural progression of the disease, as opposed to temporary or intermittent flare-ups or symptoms that resolve with return to the baseline level of disability. If aggravation is found, please state, to the extent possible, the baseline level of disability prior to aggravation. Inform the examiner that a comprehensive rationale for all opinions must be provided. All pertinent evidence, including both lay and medical, should be considered. (Continued on the next page)   If an opinion cannot be provided without resorting to speculation, the examiner must explain why this is so and state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). Paul Sorisio Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board G. Morales, 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.