Citation Nr: 21015415 Decision Date: 03/17/21 Archive Date: 03/17/21 DOCKET NO. 17-26 572 DATE: March 17, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an eye disorder, to include as due to chemical exposure other than herbicides, is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for memory lapses, to include as due to chemical exposure other than herbicides, is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran's eye disorder is due to a disease or injury in service, to include as secondary to carbon tetrachloride exposure. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for an eye disorder, to include as due to chemical exposure other than herbicides, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1965 to June 1967. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This matter was previously before the Board in March 2019, at which time it was remanded for a VA examination and to obtain private treatment records. A review of the record reveals that the treatment records were obtained; however, another VA opinion is required for the issue of memory lapses. Service Connection – Eye Disorder The Veteran contends service connection is warranted for an eye disorder, which he believes was caused by exposure to carbon tetrachloride in service. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 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). Furthermore, in determining whether service connection is warranted for a disability, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of matter, the benefit of the doubt will be given to the Veteran. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. In this case, the Veteran has current eye disabilities. At the time of his January 2020 VA examination, he was diagnosed with cataracts and hypertensive retinopathy. Both eye disorders are also indicated in the Veteran’s private treatment records. Moreover, as noted in the Board’s prior remand, the evidence suggests the Veteran was likely exposed to carbon tetrachloride in service. Thus, the question for the Board is whether the Veteran current eye disabilities began during service, or are at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury or disease, including the exposure to carbon tetrachloride. On this question, the Board initially notes that carbon tetrachloride exposure does not create a presumption of service connection for any disabilities. The Veteran has not alleged, and the evidence does not suggest that the Veteran’s claimed conditions initially began in service. The Veteran’s service treatment records are without any indication of the onset of cataracts, hypertensive retinopathy, or any other eye disorder in service. The VA examiner in January 2020 found that the Veteran has normal age-related cataracts and mild hypertensive retinopathy due to his hypertension. The examiner explained that there was no evidence of any eye condition that could be related to his exposure to carbon tetrachloride. The Veteran submitted private treatment records from his eye clinic, however, there was no opinion offered as to the etiology of his eye disabilities. The Veteran has also submitted multiple documents discussing the deleterious effects of carbon tetrachloride. Among the symptoms of carbon tetrachloride exposure listed in the Veteran’s submissions is eye irritation. The Board finds, however, that the article is general in nature and does not relate to the specific facts in the Veteran’s claim. While the Veteran believes that his eye disabilities are caused by his exposure to carbon tetrachloride, he is not competent to render such an opinion. The issue is medically complex, as it requires specific medical and scientific training that the record does not show the Veteran has. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Accordingly, because the evidence does not support a finding that the Veteran’s eye disabilities are causally connected to his active service, to include any in-service exposure to carbon tetrachloride, this claim for service connection must be denied. The Board has duly considered the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. However, the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim, so that doctrine is not applicable. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 54 (1990). REASONS FOR REMAND Service Connection – Memory Lapses The Veteran was afforded a VA examination for his memory lapses in December 2019, and was diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment with symptoms of mild memory loss. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s mild cognitive impairment is likely related to his vascular history and less likely than not to military service. This opinion, however, appears to have based on factually inaccurate statements, such as the Veteran served in the army from 1990 to 1992, suffered a stroke in 2005 and had a C&P exam in April 2014. Thus, this December 2019 opinion is based upon a factually inaccurate report of medical history and is, therefore, inadequate. See Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 458, 461 (1993). The Board finds the matter must be remanded for a new opinion based upon an accurate review of the record. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007) (holding that when VA undertakes to provide a VA examination or obtain a VA opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate); Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 270 (1998) (holding that a remand by the Board confers on a veteran, as a matter of law, a right to compliance with the remand instructions, and imposes upon VA “a concomitant duty to ensure compliance with the terms of the remand”); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). This matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum VA medical opinion to determine whether the Veteran’s mild cognitive impairment with symptoms of mild memory loss is at least as likely as not related to the Veteran’s active service, to include his exposure to carbon tetrachloride. The Board again notes that the prior opinion obtained in this matter was based on an inaccurate factual premise, as noted in the narrative portion of this remand, above. The claims file should be made available and reviewed by the opinion provider. The Board leaves it to this person to determine if another physical examination is necessary. A fully explained rationale based upon an accurate statement of the Veteran’s history should be provided. 2. After completing the above action, the Veteran’s claim should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If the claim remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. A. ADAMSON Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Jaigirdar, 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.