Citation Nr: 21029292 Decision Date: 05/13/21 Archive Date: 05/13/21 DOCKET NO. 04-12 074A DATE: May 13, 2021 ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for glaucoma. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for glaucoma is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1959 to August 1966. The Veteran is the recipient of the Purple Heart and Combat Infantryman Badge. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2011 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. Jurisdiction is currently held by the RO in Detroit, Michigan. In October 2014 a travel Board hearing was held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of this proceeding has been associated with the record. In a May 2019 decision, the Board in pertinent part denied the Veteran's claim on appeal. The Veteran appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In December 2019 the Veteran filed a joint motion for remand (JMR). The Court granted the JMR in the same month and remanded the claim to the Board. When this claim was most recently before the Board in March 2020, it was remanded for additional evidentiary development. It has since been returned to the Board for further appellate action. During the pendency of this appeal, service connection was granted for hypertension and headaches. The Veteran subsequently chose to participate in VA's Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP) for the issues regarding the rating and effective date assigned for hypertension in November 2020. As such, that appeal stream is not the subject of this decision. The Veteran was afforded a VA-contracted examination in October 2020 in which the examiner opined that there was an association between arterial blood pressure and glaucoma. The examiner stated that studies suggested that arterial hypertension "slightly but significantly" increased the risk of primary open angle glaucoma. The Veteran was afforded a VA-contracted examination in February 2021 in which the examiner stated that as per medical record and literature review, it was less likely than not that the Veteran's glaucoma was proximately due to his hypertension; systemic hypertension was not a known risk factor for glaucoma. The Veteran's daughter submitted argument in March 2021 that his glaucoma was related to Agent Orange exposure, his service-connected hypertension, or his service-connected ischemic heart disease. The Veteran's service personnel records document service in the Republic of Vietnam from July 8, 1965, to July 7, 1966; therefore, exposure to an herbicide agent is conceded. Based on the conflicting VA opinions and the Veteran's daughter's assertions, the Board finds that an addendum opinion should be obtained on remand. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Provide access to the electronic claims file to the February 2021 examiner, or appropriate substitute if required, to provide an addendum opinion. An examination should be performed if deemed necessary by the examiner providing the requested opinions. Following review of the electronic claims file, the examiner should provide an opinion regarding: Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or higher degree of probability) that any glaucoma diagnosed during the pendency of this appeal was incurred in or is otherwise related to service, to include conceded Agent Orange exposure? Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or higher degree of probability) that any glaucoma diagnosed during the pendency of this appeal was caused or aggravated (permanently worsened) by the Veteran's service-connected hypertension or service-connected ischemic heart disease? A rationale should be provided for all opinions expressed. 2. Readjudicate the Veteran's claim, with application of all appropriate laws, regulations, and case law, and consideration of any additional information obtained as a result of this remand. If the decision remains adverse to the Veteran, he and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and afforded an appropriate period of time to respond. MICHAEL A. PAPPAS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board R.M.K., 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.