Citation Nr: 21025319 Decision Date: 04/27/21 Archive Date: 04/27/21 DOCKET NO. 17-37 930 DATE: April 27, 2021 ORDER New and material evidence having been presented, reopening of the claim for service connection for retinitis pigmentosa is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for retinitis pigmentosa is remanded. INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from October 1980 to June 1981. In April 2021, the Veteran attended a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. The Veteran previously submitted a claim for entitlement to service connection for retinitis pigmentosa which was denied in a January 1985 rating decision on the basis that the Veteran’s disability was a hereditary condition that existed prior to service and was not aggravated therein. The January 1985 rating decision became final because the Veteran did not timely appeal the claim within the appeal period. In connection with the Veteran’s claim to reopen, he has submitted additional statements indicating he never experienced any manifestations associated with his disability prior to his time in active duty, and as such, he believes his condition was aggravated in service. Thus, the Board finds that new and material evidence has been received sufficient to reopen his previously denied claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (a); Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 117-18 (2010); Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1992). REASONS FOR REMAND Although delay is unfortunate, the Board finds additional development is necessary prior to final adjudication of this matter. When VA undertakes to provide a VA examination or obtain a VA opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). The Veteran underwent a VA eye examination in February 2017; however, the Board finds the medical opinion provided by the examiner to be legally insufficient. In particular, the examiner concluded the Veteran’s disability clearly and unmistakably existed prior to service, but then merely concluded the Veteran’s condition was “not aggravated beyond its natural progression by an in-service event, injury or illness.” In this regard, the Board notes there is a rebuttable presumption of soundness unless a condition is noted at entry. To rebut the presumption of sound condition, VA must show by clear and unmistakable evidence both that the disease or injury existed prior to service and that the disease or injury was not aggravated by service. VAOPGCPREC 3-03, 69 Fed. Reg. 25178 (2004); see also Wagner v. Principi, 370 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Though the February 2017 VA examiner concluded the evidence clearly and unmistakably establishes the Veteran’s retinitis pigmentosa preexisted his period of active service, the inquiry does not end there. Rather, the burden is also upon VA to demonstrate by clear and unmistakable evidence that the disability was not aggravated during the Veteran’s active duty service. See VAOPGCPREC 3-2003. As such, the Board finds a medical opinion is necessary prior to final adjudication of this matter, in order to address whether affirmative evidence clearly and undebatably proves the disability was not aggravated during his period of active service. Accordingly, this case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain a records review and medical opinion from a VA Optometrist. All pertinent evidence of record must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. Another examination of the Veteran must be performed only if deemed necessary by the examiner providing the opinion. The examiner should also answer the following questions with respect to the Veteran’s retinitis pigmentosa after soliciting all procurable historical facts from the Veteran. a) did the disorder clearly and unmistakably pre-exist the Veteran’s entry into active service? b) if the examiner concludes the Veteran’s retinitis pigmentosa did clearly and unmistakably pre-exist the Veteran’s entry into active service, did the disorder clearly and unmistakably undergo no chronic increase in severity during active duty service? and c) if the examiner concludes the Veteran’s retinitis pigmentosa did not clearly and unmistakably pre-exist the Veteran’s entry into active service, the examiner is asked to state whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., at least 50 percent probable) that such disorder originated in service or is otherwise etiologically related to service? The examiner must provide a complete rationale for any proffered opinion. In this regard, the examiner must discuss and consider the Veteran’s competent lay statements, to specifically include the Veteran’s reports of ongoing manifestations since his period of active duty. If the examiner finds the Veteran’s disability clearly and unmistakably was not aggravated during active service, the examiner should state the specific evidence used in forming this opinion. If the examiner is unable to provide any required opinion, he or she should explain why. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she must provide a complete explanation as to why this is so. If the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, the examiner should identify the additional information that is needed. T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board G. Fraser, 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.