Citation Nr: 22013933 Decision Date: 03/11/22 Archive Date: 03/11/22 DOCKET NO. 17-08 333 DATE: March 11, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral eye damage is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1966 to June 1968. This case is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2014 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. In August 2019, the Veteran was scheduled for a hearing in Washington D.C. However, he did not appear for the hearing and did not request another hearing. In October 2021, the Board remanded the matter for additional development. Now the matter is returned to the Board. However, the Board finds that another remand is necessary prior to final adjudication of the matter. The Veteran is seeking service connection for bilateral eye conditions and contends that his current condition is due to exposures to flames and sparks from pounding metal while working as a welder in service. The Board notes that additional medical opinion was obtained in December 2021. The December 2021 examiner gave a negative etiology opinion and reasoned that there is lack of evidence of record that corresponds to a specific in-service event. However, the Board finds that the examiner did not provide an adequate rationale as to whether the Veteran's eye complaint made during his separation examination is related to his current diagnosis of blepharitis. See May 29, 1968 Report of Medical Examination (the Veteran reported that his eyes began hurting when he reads, and he has a burning sensation). The examiner acknowledged that blepharitis could cause some of the symptoms that the Veteran described such as burning feeling, scratching, and foreign body sensation, but did not provide a explanation as to whether the Veteran's blepharitis at least as likely as not had its onset in service considering the symptoms reported during the separation examination. Consequently, a remand is required to obtain an addendum opinion in order to make a fully informed decision on the matter. Accordingly, the matter REMANDED for the following action: 1. The agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) must obtain an addendum opinion from the December 2021 VA examiner regarding the Veteran's service connection claim for a bilateral eye damage. If the December 2021 VA examiner is not available, the requested opinion with rationale should be rendered by another appropriate medical professional. If the new examiner determines that an updated examination is necessary, the AOJ should schedule one for the Veteran. The examiner should review the Veteran's claims file and a copy of this REMAND order before rendering the requested addendum opinion. The examiner must provide a complete written rationale for any opinion offered. The examiner must opine whether the Veteran's current eye condition is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) related to his service or had its onset in service. In particular, the examiner is asked to consider the Veteran's eye complaints noted during the May 1968 separation examination as it relates to his current diagnosis of blepharitis. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history. Such reports, including those of continuity of symptomatology, must be acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. If the examiner rejects the Veteran's reports, the examiner must provide an explanation for such rejection. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond based on given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner does not have the knowledge or training. 2. After completing the above action and any other necessary development, the issue on appeal must be readjudicated. If the claim remains denied, a Supplemental Statement of the Case must be provided to the Veteran and his representative. After the Veteran and his representative have had an adequate opportunity to respond, the appeal must be returned to the Board for appellate review. MICHAEL LANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. E. Kim, Associate 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.