Citation Nr: 21011470 Decision Date: 03/02/21 Archive Date: 03/01/21 DOCKET NO. 14-30 053 DATE: March 2, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that a current bilateral eye disability began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a bilateral eye disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.655.   REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from December 2002 to September 2006. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2012 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board remanded this appeal in September 2018. There has been substantial compliance with the remand instructions. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disability The Veteran seeks service connection for a bilateral eye disability. He asserts that his current bilateral eye disability is related to an incident of broken blood vessels in both his eyes that occurred during active duty. 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. 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). In September 2018, the Board remanded the appeal for the purpose of obtaining a VA opinion. The need for an examination was left to the clinician’s discretion. The Veteran was scheduled for VA examinations for his claims in October 2019. However, he failed to appear for the scheduled examination without good cause. Based upon a review of the evidence of record, the Board is satisfied that the Veteran received notice of the examination scheduled in October 2019. The Board notes that the record shows that mail in August 2019 was returned as undeliverable, and that the RO after a search updated the Veteran’s address. Neither the Veteran nor his representative have asserted that he did not receive notice of the examination. The Board emphasizes that the duty to assist a claimant is not a one-way street, and in this case the Veteran has failed to cooperate in the development of his claims. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 406 (1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. VA is unable to obtain the evidence that was the aim of the planned examinations. Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.655, when a claimant fails to report for an examination scheduled in conjunction with an original compensation claim, the claim shall be rated based on the evidence of record. When the examination is scheduled in conjunction, with any other original claim, a reopened claim for a benefit which was previously disallowed, or a claim for increase, the claim shall be denied. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655 (b). Service treatment records show that in May 2005 the Veteran sought treatment for redness in both eyes. He reported that he was lifting weights, when he noticed redness in both eyes. Treatment providers assessed subconjunctival hemorrhage. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in October 2012. The examiner diagnosed bilateral vitreous opacities and bilateral hypertensive retinopathy. However, as noted in the prior Board remand, no opinion was rendered on whether or not the current disabilities were related to his service. Instead, an opinion was rendered that subconjunctival hemorrhage was related to service. This followed from the fact that it was diagnosed in the Veteran’s service treatment records. Yet it is not a current diagnosis. As such, the October 2012 VA opinion is not germane for causal nexus. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has a current eye disability, and evidence shows that a history of subconjunctival hemorrhage during active service, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran’s current eye disability began during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. As indicated, the Veteran did not report to a VA examination scheduled to determine the nature and etiology of his eye disability and has not provided any good cause for his absence. Hence, his eye disability is rated on the evidence of record. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655 (b). The Board acknowledges that the Veteran has reported ongoing vision problems and believes his bilateral eye disability is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including treatment for subconjunctival hemorrhage in May 2005. However, the Veteran is not competent to provide a nexus opinion regarding this issue. The issue is medically complex, as it requires knowledge of anatomical relationships, ophthalmology, and interpretation of complicated diagnostic medical testing. Therefore, it is outside his competence because the record does not show 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). The Board has considered the Mayo Clinic treatise evidence referenced in the February 2021 appellate brief. Here, the treatise information included in the claims file does not specifically relate to the facts and circumstances surrounding this particular case. Rather, the information is general in nature and does not align with the facts of this case, in that it relates to the possibility of increased risk of future occurrences of subconjunctival hemorrhage and does not address the Veteran’s current hypertensive retinopathy or vitreous opacities (floaters). Medical evidence that is speculative, general, or inconclusive in nature cannot support a claim. Beausoleil v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 459, 463 (1996); Libertine v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 521, 523 (1996). Thus, this information, alone, is of little or no probative value. Unfortunately, there is no competent evidence to provide a nexus opinion regarding this issue. The available evidence of record otherwise does not establish that any current eye condition had onset in or is related to service. The Veteran’s refusal to attend the October 2019 examination prevented the Board from obtaining evidence that would have been pertinent to this appeal. In sum, the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disability. There is no doubt to resolve and service connection is not warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. D. JOHNSON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Lauritzen, 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.