Citation Nr: 21023097 Decision Date: 04/20/21 Archive Date: 04/20/21 DOCKET NO. 15-14 059 DATE: April 20, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a right eyelid cyst is denied. FINDING OF FACT A preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran’s resolved right eyelid cyst first manifested during or is otherwise due to his active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a right eyelid cyst have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the Army from June 2004 to November 2005 and April 2008 to May 2009. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a September 2014 rating decision issued by a regional office (hereinafter agency of original jurisdiction) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at an August 2008 travel Board hearing, a transcript of which has been attached to the record. In a May 2019 decision, the Board remanded the issues of entitlement to service connection for bilateral ankle, sleep apnea, and right eye disorders to the AOJ for further development. The AOJ granted entitlement to service connection for bilateral ankle disabilities as well as obstructive sleep apnea in a July 2020 rating decision. These appeals have been fully resolved. Grantham v. Brown, 114 F. 3d 1156, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Entitlement to service connection for a right eyelid cyst The Veteran asserts entitlement to service connection for a right eye disorder, identified as a right eyelid cyst in his December 2013 claim. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). As a general matter, service connection for a disability requires evidence of: (1) the existence of a current disability; (2) the existence of the disease or injury in service, and; (3) a relationship or nexus between the current disability and any injury or disease during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Veteran’s service treatment records are silent for complaints of or treatment for right eye problems, aside from preexisting myopia, treated with corrective eyewear. During a 2010 medical board examination, the Veteran noted several physical and mental health issues but did not report eye or skin problems. According to September 2012 VA treatment records, the Veteran reported the presence of a cyst on his right upper eyelid since approximately 2009, and the treating dermatologist scheduled an ophthalmology consultation. The Veteran was afforded a comprehensive VA examination in October 2012. The examiner noted the use of corrective lenses but otherwise normal eyes. About skin issues, the examiner observed pseudofolliculitis barbae, a left forehead cyst, as well as moles on the right elbow, abdomen, and chest, but did not note a right eyelid cyst. March 2013 VA treatment records note a right superior eyelid soft subcutaneous papule. In January 2014 a VA ophthalmologist observed the presence of the cyst, which the Veteran reported as present since around 2009 without a significant change in size or shape. The ophthalmologist described the cyst as a small well circumscribed enlarged area of the upper right eyelid, smaller than one centimeter, and noted that it was non-irritating and did not affect vision. The Veteran was instructed to treat the area with warm compresses and follow up in four months. During a May 2014 followup visit, the cyst was described as small and benign, but unchanged over the past four years even with the use of warm compresses. The Veteran’s visual acuity was described as 100 percent. In his April 2015 Form 9 appeal, the Veteran stated that his right eye cyst was examined by VA and that surgery was pending. In May 2018 correspondence, he reported that the cyst was diagnosed during a VA checkup. During the August 2018 Board hearing, the Veteran reported that his right eye issue had resolved without surgical intervention. In the May 2019 decision, the Board remanded this issue in order to determine whether the resolved cyst was due to an underlying disease. The Veteran was afforded a November 2019 VA skin examination. The examiner noted no decrease in visual acuity but upon examination diagnosed the Veteran with bilateral blepharitis of the eyes. However, the examiner noted that this condition was not related to his right eye cyst, which had completely resolved. In an August 2020 addendum, the same examiner opined, after review of the record the Veteran’s resolved right eyelid cyst was most likely due to a lack of eyelid hygiene causing styes or a chalazion as opposed to an underlying medical issue. When a disability is not active at a VA examination, the current disability prong of a direct service connection claim is still met if the disability was active at or near the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or anytime during the pendency of the claim. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007). Therefore, despite the fact that the Veteran’s right eyelid cyst has resolved, it satisfies the current disability requirement since it was present during the pendency of the claim. However, the Board finds that a preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran’s right eyelid cyst was incurred in or is otherwise due to his active service. The Veteran separated from active service in May 2009, and he is competent to report eye problems and the circumstances surrounding such. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). However, a review of the record reveals that the Veteran has never stated his right eyelid cyst first manifested inservice, instead consistently reporting that it began in or around 2009. Notably, presumptive service connection is not for application for a benign skin cyst. See generally 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a). Additionally, the objective medical record is silent for complaints of or treatment for a right eyelid cyst until September 2012. Finally, a VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s cyst was likely due to a lack of eyelid hygiene, and not an underlying illness that could have been present in or due to service. In this case, the Board finds that that Veteran’s service treatment records, to include his medical board separation examination, are more reliable evidence and have more probative value than the Veteran’s more recent lay statements providing an approximate onset date of 2009. See Curry v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 59, 68 (1994) (contemporaneous evidence has greater probative value than history as reported by the claimant). Similarly, the Board finds the VA examiner’s opinion to be highly probative, as it is based on an examination of the Veteran as well as his treatment records and provides a supporting rationale for the conclusion offered. There are no contrary medical opinions of record. In sum, the Board finds that the objective medical and probative opinion evidence is against finding that the Veteran’s resolved right eyelid cyst began in or is otherwise due to his active service. As a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit of the doubt rule is not for application. 38 U.S.C. 5107(b). T. MAINELLI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. C. Schumacher, 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.