Citation Nr: 25004604 Decision Date: 04/03/25 Archive Date: 04/03/25 DOCKET NO. 20-04 424A DATE: April 3, 2025 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral eye disability, to include as secondary to service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty for training (ADT) in the United States Army form February 1986 to June 1986, and on active duty from February 1991 to April 1991. The Veteran also has periods of reserve service from April 1991 to November 1999. This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from an August 2017 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). A September 2023 Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) decision denied entitlement to service connection for an eye disability. The Veteran appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). The parties submitted a Joint Motion for Remand (Joint Motion), and, in an April 2024 Court Order, the Court granted the Joint Motion remanding the matter for compliance with the Joint Motion. This case was previously before the Board in August 2024, when it was remanded to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) for additional development. After taking further action, the AOJ confirmed and continued the prior denial and returned the case to the Board. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral eye disability, to include as secondary to service-connected PTSD, is remanded. Although the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, a remand is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran's claim and to afford him every possible consideration. The Board finds that a remand is warranted to obtain an addendum opinion. In June 2017, the Veteran indicated that his bilateral eye disability was due to his service-connected PTSD. No opinions have addressed the Veteran's theory that his disabilities may be directly related to his service-connected PTSD. As such, remand is needed to explore this further. See Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 123, 124-25 (2007) (noting that an examination must provide "sufficient detail so that the Board's 'evaluation of the claimed disability will be a fully informed one'" and must "support its conclusion with an analysis that the Board can consider and weigh against contrary opinions"). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Ask an examiner of appropriate expertise to review the Veteran's file. The necessity of an in-person examination is left to the discretion of the examiner. Based on review of the record and conducting an examination (if deemed necessary) of the Veteran, the examiner should respond to the following: a) The examiner should state whether it is at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) that the Veteran's bilateral eye disability was caused or aggravated by the Veteran's service-connected PTSD. " If the examiner finds that the Veteran's bilateral eye disability was aggravated by his service-connected PTSD, then he/she should specify the baseline level of disability of the disability prior to aggravation and the permanent, measurable level of increased impairment due to the service-connected disability. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report symptoms, treatment, and injuries, and that his reports must be taken into account in formulating the requested opinions. The examiner is also reminded that the absence of documented treatment in service or thereafter is not fatal to a service connection claim, and the absence of evidence in the service treatment records is an insufficient basis, by itself, for a negative opinion. See Ledford v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 87, 89 (1992). Thus, the examiner is to consider the totality of the record, and not just the absence of clinical treatment, in weighing the Veteran's statements asserting symptomatology. The examiner must provide the rationale for all proffered opinions. If the examiner is unable to provide any required opinion, he or she should explain why. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation as to why this is so. If the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, the examiner should identify the additional information that is needed. Christopher Seppanen Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Gandhi, Rahil 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.