Citation Nr: 21013035 Decision Date: 03/08/21 Archive Date: 03/08/21 DOCKET NO. 15-22 750 DATE: March 8, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for an eye condition, to include glaucoma, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from August 1976 to July 1979 and National Guard service from May 1981 to September 1999. In August 2018, the Veteran testified before the undersigned at a videoconference hearing. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file. In January 2019, the Board granted service connection for hypertension, denied service connection for hyperlipidemia, and remanded the claims of service connection for diabetes and the instant claim for an eye condition. In a March 2020 rating decision, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) implemented the Board’s decision and granted entitlement to service connection for hypertension, and in a November 2020 rating decision, the AOJ granted service connection for diabetes mellitus type II. As such is a full grant of the benefits sought, the issues of service connection for hypertension and diabetes are not before the Board. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Insofar as the Veteran’s attorney, in July 2020, filed a motion with the Board to compel the AOJ to process the Board’s prior remand, the Board observes that all ordered development has been completed. With respect to a prior January 2020 motion to advance this case on the Board’s docket, the Board informed the Veteran in a February 2020 letter that it could not review the Veteran’s request, as the appeal was pending with the AOJ. In the letter, the Board instructed the Veteran and his attorney that they may re-file a motion for advancement if the case is returned to the Board. Neither the Veteran nor his attorney have done so upon recertification of this appeal from the AOJ to the Board. The Board adds that the Veteran submitted a VA Form 10182 in November 2020 expressing disagreement with the rating assigned for hypertension in the March 2020 rating decision. As that claim is being pursued in the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) framework, it will be the subject of a future Board decision. Service connection for an eye condition, to include glaucoma, is remanded While the Board sincerely regrets additional delay, it finds that remand is again necessary. First, since the issuance of the Board’s prior Remand, the Veteran has been awarded service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II. Given private treatment records showing that glaucoma and diabetes had onset around the same time in 2004, as well as medical treatise evidence cited by the September 2020 VA examiner showing that a high prevalence of primary open-angle glaucoma has been found in diabetic patients, there is an open medical question as to whether the Veteran’s glaucoma, or any other of his diagnosed eye conditions, have been caused or aggravated by his now service-connected diabetes. In addition, the Board notes that the March 2019 VA examiner noted diagnoses of glaucoma and nuclear and cortical cataracts but did not opine as to the etiology of cataracts. While an additional nexus opinion was obtained in September 2020, that examiner similarly did not opine as to the Veteran’s diagnosed cataracts. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an eye examination to assess the nature and etiology of his current eye disabilities, to include glaucoma and cataracts. After a review of the entire claims file, to include all VA examination reports of record, the examiner should answer the following: (a.) Identify all current eye disabilities, to include open-angle glaucoma and nuclear and cortical cataracts. In particular, please specify whether the Veteran also as diabetic retinopathy. The examiner is advised that a July 2013 VA examination identified diabetic retinopathy, but the March 2019 VA examination report did not. (b.) For each disability identified, is it at least as likely as not that such was caused or aggravated by the Veteran’s service-connected diabetes and/or hypertension? In providing responses, the Board emphasizes that causation and aggravation are two separate inquiries, and both must be answered. All opinions should be supported by a medical explanation or rationale. (Continued on Next Page) 2. After completing the above development and any other development deemed necessary, readjudicate the issue on appeal. If benefits sought remain denied, send the Veteran and his attorney a supplemental statement of the case. V. Chiappetta Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Polly Johnson, 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.