Citation Nr: 21029797 Decision Date: 05/17/21 Archive Date: 05/17/21 DOCKET NO. 09-20 329 DATE: May 17, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for partial vision loss (diagnosed as vitreous syneresis with vitreous floaters of the eye) ("vision disability"), to include as due to radiation exposure, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from August 1965 to February 1969. This case came to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) decision dated in April 2008. The Veteran testified before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) of the Board at a March 2013 hearing; a transcript of the hearing is of record. In an April 2020 decision, the Board denied service connection for partial vision loss. The Veteran then appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a November 2020 Joint Motion for Remand (Joint Motion), the Court, the parties (the Veteran and the Secretary of VA) requested that the Board decision be vacated, and the issue remanded. In a November 2020 order, the Court granted the Joint Motion and remanded the claim for action consistent with the terms of the Joint Motion. By a letter dated in March 2021, the Board informed the Veteran that the VLJ who held a hearing in his case was no longer employed by the Board, and he was offered the opportunity to testify at another hearing before the VLJ who will decide his case. See 38 U.S.C. § 7107 (c); 38 C.F.R. § 20.604. He subsequently responded and stated that he did not want another Board hearing, and therefore the Board will proceed with adjudication. 1. Service connection for partial vision loss is remanded. The Veteran contends that his current vision disability is directly related to his exposure to radiation while serving as a radiological warfare team chief during active duty. In the November 2020 Joint Motion, the parties agreed that in the April 2020 decision, the Board erred by not ensuring that VA complied with the duty to assist by obtaining an adequate medical opinion. The parties stated that the February 2017 VA examiner acknowledged the Veteran's vision problems in service, and noted service treatment records dated in September 1967 and June 1968 documenting vitreal floaters, but did not provide any rationale regarding whether the current vision disability is linked to his vitreal floaters in service, which is important since these service treatment records reflect "vision impairment describes pale scintillating spots during daytime. Worse at night," and "spots in field of vision." The parties agreed that remand was warranted for a new examination or medical opinion considering whether the Veteran's current vision disability is linked to his in-service vitreal floaters, with an adequate rationale for any opinion provided. In light of the Joint Motion and Court Order, the Board finds that remand is required for another VA examination and medical opinion. Evidence indicates that there may be outstanding relevant VA treatment records. Any VA treatment records are within VA's constructive possession, and are considered potentially relevant to the issue on appeal, and updated relevant VA medical records should be obtained. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran's VA treatment records for the period from March 2020 to the present. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the etiology of his claimed eye/vision disability. The examiner must review the claims file. The examiner is asked to provide a response to the following: Is the eye/vision disability at least as likely as not related to service, including vitreal floaters in service? Please review the service treatment records dated September 7, 1967 and June 11, 1968. In September 1967, the Veteran complained of vision impairment, which he described as pale scintillating spots during the daytime, worse at night, and in June 1968 he complained of spots in his field of vision. The February 2017 VA examiner noted the above service treatment records and said they documented vitreal floaters, but did not provide any rationale regarding whether the current vision disability is linked to his vitreal floaters in service. Provide a rationale to support the opinion(s). In providing the requested opinion, consider the Veteran's description of his in-service symptoms as well as his post-service symptoms. If there is any medical reason to accept or reject the proposition that the Veteran's reported symptoms in service and thereafter represented the onset of his current disability, this should be noted. Stated another way, do the Veteran's reports about his symptoms align with how the currently diagnosed disability is known to develop or are the Veteran's reports generally inconsistent with medical knowledge or implausible? S. L. Kennedy Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. L. Wasser, 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.