Citation Nr: 21027511 Decision Date: 05/05/21 Archive Date: 05/05/21 DOCKET NO. 14-07 135A DATE: May 5, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for eye condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served active duty in the United States Army from August 1967 to August 1969. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of an August 2011 rating decision of the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Montgomery, Alabama. In January 2018, the Board remanded the issue on appeal for additional development, and the case has since been returned for further appellate review. 1. Entitlement to service connection for eye condition is remanded. The Veteran contends he is entitled to service connection for his bilateral eye condition, secondary to his service-connected diabetes mellitus II. Alternatively, the Veteran asserts his eye conditions are the result of herbicide exposure during his service in the Republic of Vietnam. The Board remanded the issue in January 2018 to provide the Veteran with a VA examination pursuant to McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). A remand by the Board confers on the claimant a legal right to substantial compliance with the remand order. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The Board's 2018 remand directed the RO to provide the Veteran with an in-person examination to determine the etiology of his eye condition. An examination was conducted in July 2018. However, remand is necessary to address deficiencies in the opinion and, as such, substantial compliance has not been achieved. Id. at 271. The Board's remand requested the examiner opine as to whether the Veteran's eye disability, to include cataracts, was (1) proximately due to or aggravated by the Veteran's service-connected diabetes mellitus II, or (2) related to his presumed exposure to herbicide agents. The July 2018 examiner concluded the Veteran did not have a vision disorder, stating, "There is no vision disorder proximately due to or the result of diabetes mellitus II." This conclusion, however, contradicts the examiner's findings in Section 1 (Diagnoses) of the examination report indicating several diagnoses, as well as the Veteran's treatment record, and prior VA findings of a current diagnosis. Importantly, the Veteran's cataract condition is not addressed by the examiner and no opinion regarding any theory of entitlement is provided. The Board concludes the July 2018 examination is inadequate and therefore the RO has not substantially complied with the Board's 2018 remand directives. Accordingly, the matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion from the appropriate clinician regarding the Veteran's eye conditions. Following review of the claims file and Board remands, the examiner is asked to opine on the following: a. Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) any of the Veteran's eye conditions to include cataracts are related to his active duty service, to include exposure to herbicide agents. b. Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that any of the Veteran's eye conditions to include cataracts were: 1.) proximately caused, or 2.) aggravated beyond natural progression by the Veteran's diabetes mellitus II. Attention is invited to: CAPRI, 12/16/2019, pg. 150/293. Note that aggravation means any incremental increase in disability in non-service-connected disabilities (i.e., any additional impairment of earning capacity) resulting from service-connected conditions. The examiner is asked to provide the underlying reasons for all opinions expressed, and is reminded that the term "as likely as not" does not mean "within the realm of medical possibility," but rather that the evidence of record is so evenly divided that, in the examiner's expert opinion, it is as medically sound to find in favor of the proposition as against it. Bethany L. Buck Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T.N. Chapman, 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.