Citation Nr: 22008033 Decision Date: 02/11/22 Archive Date: 02/11/22 DOCKET NO. 16-21 500 DATE: February 11, 2022 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a corneal scar of the right eye is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a right eye injury, other than a corneal scar, to include bilateral pinguecula and dry eye syndrome, is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The evidence of record persuasively weighs in favor of a finding that the Veteran's in-service right eye injury has resulted in a current corneal scar. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a corneal scar of the right eye have been satisfied. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1983 to May 1991. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). It was previously before the Board in December 2019, where it was remanded for additional development. It now returns for further appellate review. The Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned veterans Law Judge in October 2019. A transcript of the hearing is of record. The Veteran suffered an injury to his right eye while in service and seeks service connection for current residuals of this injury. December 6, 1985 service treatment records notes a chemical burn to the right eye and an abrasion to the right cornea. Generally, to establish service connection, a claimant must show: (1) a present disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service, the so-called "nexus" requirement. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; see also Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in November 2013 in support of a September 2012 petition to reopen a claim for service connection for right eye injury residuals that was previously denied in November 2008. During the examination, the examiner found no current residuals of a right eye injury and stated that the Veteran's eye was completely healed. A previous VA examination afforded in November 2007 for his original service connection claim also found no evidence of prior trauma to the right eye. However, as the Board noted in its previous remand, a May 2008 VA treatment record reflects a finding of a corneal opacity in the right eye secondary to a foreign body ("FB"). Additionally, a May 2011 VA treatment record reflects examination findings of a dense "SPK" (superficial punctate keratitis) in the right eye, and notes that foreign body scars that had previously been observed were still present that were suspected to be due to the Veteran's in-service right eye injury. Given these disparate findings, the Board ordered a new VA examination in its previous remand to determine whether the Veteran still has corneal scarring in his right eye or other residuals of the in-service right eye injury. The examiner was asked to opine whether the Veteran has corneal scarring or other residuals of the injury sustained in service when a jet engine cleaning cart exploded and sent cleaning chemicals and/or fragments into his eye, resulting in a corneal abrasion (also diagnosed as a corneal thermal burn), as documented in the service treatment records. If no corneal scarring is found, the examiner was asked to reconcile that finding with the May 2008 and May 2011 VA treatment records finding that the Veteran had a cornea scar due to a foreign body. The examination and opinion were provided in January 2020, and the examiner did indeed find very faint corneal scarring related to his in-service injury, although it was noted to not affect visual acuity. Based on these findings, and regardless of its severity, the evidence is in favor of a finding that the Veteran's in-service right eye injury has resulted in present-day corneal scarring. Thus, service connection for this corneal scarring is granted. REASONS FOR REMAND During the aforementioned VA examination in January 2020, the examiner also diagnosed the Veteran with bilateral pinguecula and dry eye syndrome in addition to his corneal scarring. No opinion was provided, however, as to the etiological relationship between these additional conditions and the Veteran's military service, to include his in-service right eye injury. While the Board notes that the claim has been one for residuals of a right eye injury, the Veteran has asserted, including during his November 2013 examination, that a jet engine cleaning cart exploded sending petroleum-based cleaning products and metal fragments into both of his eyes, and that he was treated for corneal abrasions with patching for several days, with metallic foreign bodies in his corneas afterwards for some time. As such, the matter of service connection for residuals of the Veteran's in-service eye injury, other than corneal scarring, must be remanded for an addendum opinion. The matter is therefore REMANDED for the following action: Send the claims file to the examiner who conducted the January 2020 VA examination (or, if unavailable, any other qualified examiner) to offer an addendum opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any current eye condition other than corneal scarring, to include bilateral pinguecula and dry eye syndrome, onset during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, to include the Veteran's December 1985 injury. In offering this opinion, the examiner should consider the Veteran's statements that his in-service injury in December 1985 affected both eyes. See November 2013 VA Examination. The need for an additional examination is left to the discretion of the examiner. A rationale for all opinions offered is requested as adjudicators are precluded from making any medical findings. P.M. DILORENZO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Scarduzio, 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.