Citation Nr: 21011025 Decision Date: 02/26/21 Archive Date: 02/26/21 DOCKET NO. 14-13 137 DATE: February 26, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a left eye condition is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran’s current left eye condition began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for the Veteran’s left eye condition are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from November 1962 to November 1964. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Oakland, California. In May 2017 and December 2020, the Veteran testified at Board hearings before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims file. The Veteran’s claims were previously remanded by the Board in a July 2019 decision. The Board finds that the RO has substantially complied with the July 2019 Board remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Entitlement to service connection for a left eye condition The Veteran contends that his current left eye condition is due to an injury incurred in service in 1963. Specifically, the Veteran contends he was injured by a rifle butt that required stitches in the field. At the December 2020 hearing, the Veteran testified that he continues to experience symptoms of eye irritation, eye drooping, vision problems, and watering of the eyes. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has a current diagnosis of a left eye condition, specifically bilateral ectropion, and evidence shows that an in-service injury occurred, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran’s diagnosis of ectropion began during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board notes that the service treatment records do not show treatment for an eye condition during the Veteran’s active duty service. Private treatment records show the Veteran was not diagnosed with bilateral ectropion until September 2011, decades after his separation from service. The Board notes that the Veteran denied any vision problems in June 2008 and January 2012. While the Veteran is competent to report having experienced symptoms of eye irritation, drooping, vision problems, and watering of the eyes since service, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case or determine that these symptoms were manifestations of his current left eye condition. The issue is medically complex, as it requires knowledge and interpretation of complicated diagnostic medical testing. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Further, the November 2019 VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s ectropion is not at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including an injury by a rifle butt. The rationale was the Veteran was diagnosed with a bilateral condition with no record of right eye injury in service. The examiner further noted that ectropion is not an uncommon developmental eyelid issue due to aging. The VA examiner also indicated that the Veteran’s bilateral cataracts are naturally progressive. Notably, the VA examiner did not find any other history of vision complaints or eye conditions in the record. The examiner’s opinion is probative, because it is based on an accurate medical history and provides an explanation that contains clear conclusions and supporting data. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). The Veteran believes his left eye condition is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Veteran in this case is not competent to provide a nexus opinion regarding this issue. The issue is medically complex, as it requires knowledge of pathology and interpretation of complicated diagnostic medical testing. Therefore, it is outside the competence of the Veteran in this case because the record does not show that he has the medical training or credentials to make such a determination. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Kahana v. Shinseki, 24. Vet. App. 428 (2011). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the VA examiner’s opinion. Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim for service connection. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M.D. Taylor, 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.