08-07 959, 08-07 959

Veteran served active duty 1961–1966 and is service‑connected for right eye disability rated 60% (combined 60%).
Veteran applied for TDIU (VA Form 21‑8940, Jan 2008), asserting eye pain caused inability to work; reported college education and long work history as an accountant.
VA obtained private and VA treatment records, and conducted eye examinations (June 2006, March 2015) and a general medical exam (May 2006).
June 2006 VA exam recorded Veteran saying his unemployability was not due to vision; examiner noted denial of eye pain and good left‑eye vision.
March 2015 VA examiner diagnosed right‑eye blindness but concluded the eye disability produced no functional impairment or job restrictions; private Retina Clinic records (2015) said left eye permits all activities of daily living.
Board found VA satisfied notice and duty‑to‑assist obligations, weighed medical opinions and lay statements, and denied TDIU because evidence preponderates that the single 60% right‑eye disability did not preclude substantially gainful employment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entitlement to TDIU based solely on service‑connected right eye disability	Veteran: right eye pain and disability render him unable to secure/follow substantially gainful employment	VA/Board: medical and treatment evidence show no functional impairment from the eye that would preclude employment; examiner found left eye sufficient for ADLs	Denied — evidence preponderates that right eye disability did not cause unemployability

Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120 (VA medical exams must be adequate for Board to decide)
Acevedo v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 286 (medical reports read as a whole within case context)
Monzingo v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 97 (lack of detailed rationale does not automatically render exam inadequate)
Hatlestad v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 524 (central inquiry for unemployability is whether service‑connected disabilities alone produce unemployability)
Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141 (substantial compliance with Board remand avoids Stegall violation)
Nieves‑Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (VA examiners are not required to review entire claims file in every case)
Jandreau v. Shinseki, 492 F.3d 1372 (lay evidence competency for matters within personal knowledge)
Pond v. West, 12 Vet. App. 341 (statements made for treatment generally reliable; interest may affect credibility)
Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (claims file review not always required for adequacy)
D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97 (context on examiner review and adequacy)