Citation Nr: 21025649 Decision Date: 04/28/21 Archive Date: 04/28/21 DOCKET NO. 13-07 001 DATE: April 28, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for corneal scarring with blurred vision of both eyes is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1964 to July 1968. He is the recipient of numerous awards and decorations, to include two Purple Heart medals. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2010 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. In March 2014, the Veteran and his spouse testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A copy of the hearing transcript is associated with the record. In February 2015 and December 2019, the Board remanded the case for additional development and it now returns for further appellate review. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for corneal scarring with blurred vision of both eyes. In December 2019, the Board noted, as relevant, that a September 2010 VA examiner was unable to evaluate the relative contribution to the Veteran’s decreased right eye visual acuity between his in-service and post-service corneal injuries, and an April 2015 VA examiner offered conflicting opinions as to whether the Veteran’s right eye corneal transplant (performed in 2003 and 2013), with resulting glaucoma, optic atrophy, and pseudophakia was a progression of the original service-connected diagnosis of corneal scarring (which occurred as a result of an in-service flash burn and shrapnel injury), or a separate or distinct condition. Thus, the Board remanded the claim in order to obtain an addendum opinion addressing such matter. In January 2020, the Veteran underwent another VA examination, at which time the examiner opined that his right eye corneal transplant with resulting glaucoma, optic atrophy, and pseudophakia was less likely than not caused by the in-service flash burn and shrapnel injury; rather, she indicated that was caused by a post-service injury in 2002 in when a piece of steel hit the Veteran’s right eye. No further explanation was provided, and the examiner did not address the contradictory findings of prior VA examiners. Accordingly, the Board finds that another remand is necessary in order to ensure compliance with the prior remand orders and obtain an adequate opinion addressing the etiology of the aforementioned right eye disorders. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Return the record, to include a copy of this remand, to the VA examiner who conducted the January 2020 eye examination. If she is not available, the record should be provided to an appropriate medical professional so as to render the requested opinion. Following a review of the record, the examiner should offer an opinion as to whether the Veteran’s right eye corneal transplant (performed in 2003 and 2013), with resulting glaucoma, optic atrophy, and pseudophakia, is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) related to, or a progression of, his in-service flash burn and shrapnel injury resulting in corneal scarring rather than a separate and distinct condition. In offering such opinion, the examiner should reconcile the contradictory findings of the September 2010 and April 2015 VA examiners. Specifically, the September 2010 VA examiner was unable to evaluate the relative contribution to the Veteran’s decreased right eye visual acuity between his in-service and post-service corneal injuries, and the April 2015 VA examiner offered conflicting opinions as to whether the Veteran’s right eye corneal transplant (performed in 2003 and 2013), with resulting glaucoma, optic atrophy, and pseudophakia was a progression of the original service-connected diagnosis of corneal scarring (which occurred as a result of an in-service flash burn and shrapnel injury), or a separate or distinct condition. A rationale for any opinion offered should be provided. A. JAEGER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board H. Ahmad, 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.