Citation Nr: 21040304 Decision Date: 07/03/21 Archive Date: 07/03/21 DOCKET NO. 12-02 569A DATE: July 3, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a retinal burn of the left eye (left eye condition) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from March 1989 to March 1993. This appeal was remanded by the Board in September 2015 for a hearing, which was withdrawn in November 2015. The Board subsequently remanded the appeal in August 2019 for additional development. In a decision issued in April 2020, the Board denied service connection for a left eye condition. The Veteran appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In March 2021, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), vacated the Board's April 2020 decision to deny service connection for a left eye condition, and remanded the matter for additional proceedings consistent with the JMPR. Entitlement to service connection for a left eye condition is remanded. In the February 2021 JMPR, the parties agreed that the Board erred in relying on the September 2019 VA examination, which did not substantially comply with the August 2019 Board remand. In pertinent part, in the August 2019 remand directive, the Board specifically requested for a VA examination to be performed and for the examiner to determine whether "any relationship" existed between the Veteran's left eye condition and his active duty service. Moreover, the examiner was instructed to provide an opinion as to whether any current left eye condition was etiologically related to the Veteran's period of active military service, to include the reported mild laser burn while in service. In attempt to comply with the remand directive, the Regional Office (RO) produced a September 2019 VA examination of the Veteran's eyes. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with lattice degeneration and opined that, "there is no indication of any damage to the eyes from laser exposure while in service." She explained that while the Veteran did have lattice degeneration of the left retina, there was no known association between lattice degeneration and laser exposure, nor was there an association with trauma or physical activities. Therefore, the examiner concluded, there was nothing to connect the lattice degeneration to any episodes in service. As the September 2019 VA examiner explicitly limited the possible theories of service connection to a laser exposure, trauma or physical activities, consistent with the JMPR, the Board finds that remand is warranted to acquire a new VA medical opinion to assess whether any etiological relationship exists between the Veteran's left eye condition and his military service. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain all relevant and outstanding VA and private medical records and associate them with the claims file. All attempts to obtain these records must be documented in the file. 2. After the above development, obtain a VA medical opinion from an appropriate examiner to assess the etiology of the Veteran's left eye condition. The claims folder (including a copy of this remand) must be provided to and reviewed by the examiner. Based on a review of the evidence of record, the examiner should respond to the following: The examiner must provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's left eye condition is etiologically related to his period of active military service, to include the reported mild laser burn while in service. In rendering the above opinion, the examiner must specifically consider and discuss the March 1990 service treatment record, which notes that the Veteran complained of swelling in both eyes. The examiner must also consider and discuss the August 1990 service treatment record that indicates that the Veteran was assessed with conjunctivitis after complaining that it was hard to focus. The examiner is also advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms/history and that such reports must be acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. If the Veteran's reports are discounted, the examiner should provide a reason for doing so. A rationale for all requested opinions shall be provided. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation stating why this is so. In so doing, the examiner shall explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information or that he or she has exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to that particular question. (Continued on the next page) If the examiner determines that a physical examination of the Veteran is necessary to provide the requested opinion, such should be scheduled. A. ISHIZAWAR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Talton, John H. 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.