Citation Nr: 21030261 Decision Date: 05/18/21 Archive Date: 05/18/21 DOCKET NO. 09-09 944 DATE: May 18, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent for glaucoma is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served honorably on active duty with the United States Navy from November 2000 to November 2005, and from June 2006 to July 2007. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a Travel Board hearing in August 2018. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file. This case was most recently before the Board in July 2020, at which time it was remanded for additional development. For the reasons discussed below however, another remand is necessary. The claim of entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent for glaucoma is remanded. In its July 2020 remand instructions, the Board instructed the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) to obtain certain outstanding records, including the visual field chart for the right eye from a July 2019 VA eye examination and copies of the full results of visual field testing completed in February 2008, April 2010, May 2014, June 2015, January 2016, June 2018, and February 2020. The Board also requested the results of optical coherence tomography (OCT) testing conducted in January 2016, June 2018, July 2019, and February 2020. Unfortunately, the right eye visual field chart is still unavailable for review. Further, while the AOJ obtained treatment notes associated with the above-mentioned appointments, the visual field charts and OCT test results are unavailable for review. The treatment notes indicate those records are available as scanned documents in VistA Imaging. Notably, the Board does not have access to VistA Imaging therefore any records or charts available only in VistA must be printed from VistA and uploaded/added to the Veteran's electronic VA file. Therefore, remand is warranted to obtain these outstanding VA records. Additionally, evidence associated with the claims file since this case was most recently before the Board in July 2020 suggests the Veteran's glaucoma has worsened since her last VA eye examination in July 2019. Specifically, in a March 2021 letter, the Veteran wrote that she cannot see anything below the waist; that she has crashed her car four times in the past 18 months; and that she falls, trips, and runs into people at the grocery store because she cannot see them from the sides. She also described difficulties with activities of daily living such as cooking and doing dishes and asserted that she is going blind. In an April 2021 application for Specially Adapted Housing or Special Home Adaptation Grant, the Veteran wrote that she has lost 50 percent of her eyesight. The Veteran also submitted an application for automobile or other conveyance and adaptive equipment, citing permanent impairment of vision as a qualifying disability. A veteran is entitled to a new VA examination where there is evidence that the condition has worsened since the last examination. Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997); Weggenmann v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 281, 284 (1993). Therefore, on remand, the Veteran should be afforded another VA eye examination to determine the severity of her disability. Finally, the Board notes that its July 2020 remand directives requested that the AOJ attempt to obtain private treatment records associated with eye treatment through the Veterans Choice Program, for which she was approved in June 2016 and February 2017. In July 2020, the AOJ sent a letter to the Veteran seeking authorization to obtain on her behalf any private treatment records associated with her claim. The Veteran did not respond to the letter. However, given that the Board is remanding the claim for additional development, the Veteran should be afforded another opportunity to provide copies of any private treatment records associated with her claim, or the authorization necessary for VA to obtain the records on her behalf. Accordingly, the matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain VA ophthalmology/optometry treatment records that have been scanned into VistA Imaging but are not associated with the Veteran's claims file, including any visual field charts and results of optical coherence tomography (OCT) testing. The Board does not have access to VistA Imaging therefore any records or charts available only in VistA must be printed from VistA and uploaded/added to the Veteran's electronic VA file. 2. Again ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for all private providers who have treated her for her eyes at any time during the appeal period, including from all Choice-authorized treatment providers. Make two requests for the authorized records from each identified provider, unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. 3. Then, schedule the Veteran for an examination by an optometrist or ophthalmologist to determine the current severity of her service-connected glaucoma. The examiner must review pertinent documents in the claims file, to include a copy of this REMAND, in conjunction with the examination. The examiner should provide a full description of the disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran's disability under the rating criteria. To the extent possible, the examiner should identify any symptoms and functional impairments due to the service-connected eye disability alone and discuss the effect of the disability on any occupational functioning and activities of daily living. The examiner is asked to provide an opinion reconciling the objective results of visual field testing on examination and throughout the period on appeal with the Veteran's subjective complaints concerning the severity of her visual field limitations. A complete rationale for all opinions must be provided. 4. Then, readjudicate the claim. S. B. MAYS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board G. T. Raftery, 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.