Citation Nr: 21013517 Decision Date: 03/09/21 Archive Date: 03/09/21 DOCKET NO. 18-40 510 DATE: March 9, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral eye disability, claimed a vision loss, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1963 to June 1966. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from the December 2017 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned VLJ on January 19, 2021; a transcript of the hearing has been associated with the record. The Veteran contends that his diagnosed vision loss is related to an automobile accident in September 1964 or related to an incident where paint stripper was splashed in his eyes. See January 2018 Notice of Disagreement. The Board must remand the claim to provide the Veteran a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his eye disabilities. As an initial matter, the Veteran has been diagnosed with presbyopia; a refractive error. The Board notes that refractive errors are not considered a disease or injury for VA compensation purposes. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(c). However, service connection may be granted for a disability which is shown to have resulted from a defect (such as refractive error) which was subject to a superimposed disease or injury during service. See VAOPGCPREC 82-90 (July 18, 1990) (cited at 55 Fed. Reg. 45711) (Oct. 30, 1990) (service connection may not be granted for defects of congenital, developmental or familial origin, unless the defect was subject to a superimposed disease or injury). Here, he has been diagnosed with other eye disabilities, including right eye acute iritis, bilateral mild dry eye syndrome, bilateral cataracts and macular mottling. See December 2013 VA Optometry Consultation; April 2018 VA Optometry Consultation. Additionally, there is evidence in the service treatment records (STRs) of eye injury, including injury to the left eyelid in an automobile accident and paint stripper in the eyes; indeed, the Veteran provided lay statements detailing the incidents. Finally, the Board does not have adequate information to decide the claim; namely, a medical opinion. The RO has not yet provided an examination to ascertain whether any current eye disability is likely related to service. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d) (2012); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). Therefore, before the claim is decided on the merits, a VA examination and medical opinion should be obtained. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ensure all outstanding VA treatment records are associated with the file. 2. Thereafter, obtain a medical opinion from an appropriately qualified examiner to determine the likely etiology of any current eye disability. The claims file and a copy of this Remand will be made available to the examiner, who will acknowledge receipt and review of these materials. After reviewing the claims file in its entirety, the examiner is asked to respond to the following: (a.) Identify all eye disabilities currently shown. (b.) Opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that any current eye disability, to include acute iritis, dry eye syndrome, cataracts, or macular mottling, began during or is otherwise related to active service, or whether any refractive error of the eye was subject to a superimposed disease or injury which created additional disability. **In doing so, address (i) the Veterans lay statements in his July 1969 statement in support of claim and his STRs regarding his automobile accident in September 1964; and (ii) the Veteran’s lay statements regarding paint stripper being splashed in his eye in his January 2021 hearing transcript; and (iii) the May 1966 optometry visit. A complete rationale for any medical opinion is required. If an opinion cannot be expressed without resort to speculation, the examiner should so indicate and discuss why an opinion is not possible, to include whether there is additional evidence that could enable an opinion to be provided, or whether the inability to provide the opinion is based on the limits of medical knowledge. (Continued on the next page)   3. Thereafter, readjudicate the remanded claim. S. B. MAYS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Moldawer, 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.