Citation Nr: 21040715 Decision Date: 07/06/21 Archive Date: 07/06/21 DOCKET NO. 16-05 706 DATE: July 6, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran's bilateral eye disability began in, or was otherwise etiologically related to, his military service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from May 1963 to November 1971. Unfortunately, the Veteran passed away during the pendency of this appeal in July 2020, and the appellant is his surviving spouse. 38 U.S.C. § 101(3). In a February 2021 notification letter, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) recognized the appellant as a substitute claimant for the Veteran's claim on appeal that was pending when he died. 38 U.S.C. § 3.1010. In July 2019, the Veteran and his wife testified before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ), who has since left the Board. A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the Veteran's claims file. The appellant has not alleged any deficiency with the Board hearing testimony. Bryant v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 488, 496-97 (2010). In April 2021, the appellant was notified that the VLJ who presided over the hearing had left the Board, and was offered the opportunity to request a new hearing. In May 2021 the appellant stated that she did not wish to have another hearing. Having reviewed the records, the Board finds that there has been substantial compliance with the previous Board remand instructions. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disability. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated during active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Generally, service connection for a disability requires competent evidence of: (1) the existence of a current disability; (2) the existence of the disease or injury in service; and (3) a causal relationship or nexus between the current disability and any injury or disease during service. See Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The appellant is seeking service connection for a bilateral eye disability, for substitution benefits purposes. Prior to death, the Veteran had contended that his condition is related to a battery acid incident during service. The appellant testified that he was prescribed glasses post-service and relayed an occasion where he asked her to read the sign while driving. In this case, it is not in question that the Veteran had been diagnosed with bilateral eye disability, to include lattice degeneration and pseudophakia of bilateral eyes, bilateral cataracts, bilateral peripheral retinal degeneration, and right eye pterygium, prior to his death. The Veteran's service treatment records indicate that the Veteran was treated for complaints related to his eyes (i.e. bilateral conjunctivitis, crusting in both eyes) in February 1967, October 1967, and December 1970, but are silent as to an incident involving battery acid. His September 1971 separation examination shows clinically normal eye condition, and while the Veteran reported various unrelated problems, he denied any eye trouble on his corresponding report of medical history. The presiding physician noted on the report of medical history that the Veteran had worn glasses since 1969, but noted that there were no complications from doing so. Ultimately, the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran's diagnosed eye disabilities are causally related to his period of service. VA obtained an opinion concerning the etiology of the Veteran's eye disabilities in December 2019. The examiner opined that the Veteran's eye disabilities were less likely than not that related to military service, to include the battery acid episode in late 1960's at the Blytheville Air Force Base. As to the diagnosed lattice degeneration, the examiner stated that the disability was a condition in which the peripheral retina becomes atrophic in a lattice pattern and may develop tears, breaks, or holes. The examiner stated that the process occurs in the general population. The examiner additionally stated that while the Veteran reported battery acid splashing in his eyes, there was no evidence of treatment for that incident in service, and further there was no evidence of chronic disability or eyelid, cornea, or conjunctival scarring. Concerning the diagnosis of pseudophakia, the examiner noted that the Veteran underwent successful cataract in November 2019 resulting in his pseudophakia. The examiner then explained that prior treatment records reflected that the Veteran had age appropriate nuclear sclerotic and cortical cataracts in both eyes prior to his November 2019 surgery, thus indicating that the Veteran's cataracts, and resulting pseudophakia, were more likely due to the natural aging process. There is no evidence that the examiner was either not competent or credible, and the examiner supported the opinion with a well-reasoned rationale that discussed the pathophysiology of the Veteran's disabilities and cited to the medical evidence of record. As such, the Board finds that the opinion is entitled to significant probative weight as to the presence of a nexus. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). While the Veteran underwent another VA examination in July 2014, as briefly noted in the previous Board remand, the examiner at the time did not address the Veteran's statements regarding a battery acid incident during service. Thus, the Board does not assign any probative value to this opinion. While there are VA and private treatment records pertaining to complaints and diagnoses regarding eye problems, none of these provide any medical etiology opinion. The Board also considered the Veteran's consistent lay assertions made prior to his death that he got battery acid in his eyes while checking a car battery during the summer of 1968 while working at the base service station, as well as his statement that in the winter of 1968, he noticed blurriness in his vision and reported to sick call, where he was given prescription glasses. While a lay person is certainly competent to report matters within his own personal knowledge, a lay person without appropriate medical training and expertise simply is not competent to opine on more complex medical questions. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As the Veteran's statements asserting that his diagnosed eye disabilities are related to service are not competent, they are entitled to no probative weight. Based on the foregoing, the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding of a nexus between the Veteran's eye disabilities and his period of service. The Veteran's assertions of a direct causal connection between the diagnosed disabilities and service are not competent, and therefore entitled to no probative weight. Conversely, the VA examiner's opinion contained a clear conclusion that was supported by a well-reasoned rationale. As the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding of a nexus, service connection for a bilateral eye disability is not warranted in this case. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. The preponderance of the evidence weighs against a finding that the Veteran's bilateral eye disability is causally related to his service. Since the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit of the doubt rule is not applicable. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 5557 (1990); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. For these reasons, the claim is denied. CHRISTOPHER A. WENDELL Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Lee 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.