Citation Nr: 21011227 Decision Date: 03/01/21 Archive Date: 03/01/21 DOCKET NO. 19-09 953 DATE: March 1, 2021 ORDER New and material evidence having been received, the application to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for a right eye disorder is granted. Service connection for a right eye disorder is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran had active service from September 1965 to July 1967. 2. A November 1967 rating decision denied service connection for a right eye disorder as the evidence did not support a finding of a current disability. The Veteran did not appeal this decision, and no new and material evidence was submitted within one year of this decision. Therefore, that decision became final. 3. Evidence received since the November 1967 rating decision shows a current right eye disorder, such that it relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim and raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 4. A right eye injury was shown in service, but symptoms were not shown to be chronic; a current right eye disorder, diagnosed as pseudophakia, is not causally or etiologically related to service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The November 1967 rating decision is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (c) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 20.302, 20.1103 (2020). 2. New and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim for service connection for a right eye disorder. 38 U.S.C. § 5108, 7104 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2020). 3. A right eye disorder was not incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103(a), 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS New and Material Evidence to Reopen Claim Prior unappealed rating decisions may not be reopened absent the submission of new and material evidence warranting revision of the previous decision. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. “New” evidence means evidence “not previously submitted to agency decisionmakers.” “Material” evidence means “evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, related to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). In order to be “new and material” evidence, the evidence must not be cumulative or redundant, and “must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim,” which has been found to be enabling, not preclusive. See Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110 (2010). When determining whether the claim should be reopened, the credibility of the newly submitted evidence is to be presumed. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1991). The claim for a right eye disorder was originally denied in a November 1967 rating decision because the Veteran failed to report for his scheduled examination. As such, no current disorder was shown. He did not appeal this decision and it became final one year later. This was the last final denial on any basis. Evidence received since the November 1967 rating decision includes clinical treatment records and an August 2018 VA visual examination. This recently-submitted evidence supports a current diagnosis of a right eye disorder, diagnosed as pseudophakia post/cataract surgery. As the claim was denied, in part, for lack of a current disorder, this new evidence raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim and the application to reopen is granted. Service Connection for a Right Eye Disorder Turning to the relevant laws and regulations, service connection may be granted on a direct basis as a result of disease or injury incurred in service based on nexus using a three-element test: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a), (d); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). As noted above, an August 2018 VA examiner diagnosed pseudophakia of the right eye following cataract removal surgery. As such, a current right eye disorder has been noted and the first element of service connection has been met. Next, the service treatment records (STRs) show that the Veteran received treatment in November 1966 after being accidently struck with what was described as a bayonet or barrel of a rifle while in combat. He was treated for a laceration above the right eye and sustained what was described as a minor injury to the eye. He was treated with an eye patch and ointment. However, the STRs are thereafter silent for any complaints of, treatment for, or a diagnosis of an eye disorder. Further, the July 1967 separation examination reflected a normal clinical evaluation of the eyes, ophthalmoscopic, pupils, and ocular motility and did not indicate any defects or diagnoses. As such, the medical evidence does not support the in-service incurrence of a chronic right eye disorder. To the extent that the Veteran asserts a connection between his in-service right eye injury and current diagnosis, the medical evidence does not support a nexus. Specifically, at an August 2018 VA examination, the Veteran related that his symptoms began in 1966 when he sustained trauma to the right eye with what he possibly thought was a bayonet. The examiner diagnosed pseudophakia of the right beginning in 2018. The examiner reflected that the Veteran’s eye injury in service had resolved without any chronic residuals. A reasonable reading of the opinion is that pseudophakia of the right eye is not related to the in-service eye injury and there were no residuals related to the in-service eye injury. There are no contradictory medical opinions of record which support the claim. As such, the medical evidence does not support the grant of service connection. The Board has considered the Veteran’s lay statements that his disorder was caused by service. He is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge as it comes to him through his senses. However, he is not competent to offer an opinion as to the etiology of his current disorder due to the medical complexity of the matters involved. Such competent evidence has been provided by the service records, clinical evidence, and examination obtained and associated with the claims file. Here, the Board attaches greater probative weight to the clinical findings than to his statements. In light of the above, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection and there is no doubt to be otherwise resolved. As such, the appeal is denied. Finally, the Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, for the Board’s consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-370 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not   required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Kokolas, 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.