Citation Nr: A25035363 Decision Date: 04/16/25 Archive Date: 04/16/25 DOCKET NO. 231205-397694 DATE: April 16, 2025 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for open angle glaucoma, to include for treatment purposes under Chapter 17, Title 38 U.S.C. and 38 C.F.R. § 3.360(a), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The appellant served on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps from September 1997 to November 1999; he was discharged under other than honorable conditions. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a November 2023 higher level review by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). In December 2023, the appellant submitted a VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement) and elected the Direct Review docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the July 2023 AOJ decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. If evidence was submitted during the period after the AOJ issued the decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801. However, because the Board is remanding the claim, any evidence the Board could not consider will be considered by the AOJ in the adjudication of the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2)(ii). Entitlement to service connection for open angle glaucoma, to include for treatment purposes under Chapter 17, Title 38 U.S.C. and 38 C.F.R. § 3.360(a), is remanded. The appellant contends that he experiences an eye disability related to service. Under the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), the Board must remand to the AOJ to correct pre-decisional duty to assist errors (including when the AOJ failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain VA treatment records or relevant federal or private treatment records, failed to obtain a VA examination, or provided an inadequate VA examination or opinion). Additionally, the Board must remand for any pre-decisional error on the part of the AOJ to satisfy its duties under 38 U.S.C. § 5103A and may remand for correction of any other error by the AOJ in satisfying a regulatory or statutory duty, if correction of the error would have a reasonable possibility of aiding in substantiating the appellant's claim. 38 C.F.R. § 20.802(a). Here, in June 2023, the appellant was afforded a VA examination and diagnosed with primary open angle glaucoma, OU. The examiner then opined that the appellant's disability is less likely than not related to service. He explained that there are no research studies that link moto vehicle toxic chemicals or vapors to glaucoma. This opinion is inadequate for adjudicative purposes as it is conclusory in nature, and the examiner failed to provide any supporting rationale. Furthermore, the examiner failed to provide a direct service connection nexus opinion. Based on the foregoing, the AOJ failed to obtain an adequate medical opinion prior to promulgation of the decision on appeal and a remand is warranted. Nieves-Rodriquez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008); Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum medical opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding the appellant's eye disability. The electronic claims file and a copy of this remand must be made available to the examiner and the examiner should note in the examination report that the claims folder and the remand have been reviewed. The need for an additional examination of the appellant is left to the discretion of the clinician selected to write the addendum opinion. Based on a review of the record the examiner should respond to the following: (a) Opine whether it is at least as likely as not that the eye disability is related to service, to include any inservice toxic exposure. Please explain why or why not. In providing the requested opinions, the examiner should consider the service treatment records, medical records, and lay assertions of record. Additionally, the mere lack of treatment records is not a sufficient reason for finding lack of a nexus. The examiner is reminded that a medical opinion on direct service connection and a medical opinion on whether the disability is related to any inservice toxic exposure is warranted. The examination report must include a complete rationale for all opinions expressed. If the examiner feels that a requested opinion cannot be rendered without resorting to speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is caused by a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (i.e., no one could respond given medical science and the known facts) or by a deficiency in the record or the examiner (i.e., additional facts are required, or the examiner does not have the needed knowledge or training). KRISTI L. GUNN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Kaufer, 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.