09-48 267, 09-48 267

Veteran served on active duty 1986–2007; filed initial claim for service connection for atypical Coat's disease of the right eye in October 2007 and was granted effective January 1, 2008.
Appeal to the Board followed a May 2009 RO rating decision; Board remanded in March 2016 and again in May 2017.
The core dispute is entitlement to a rating in excess of 10% for the right eye condition.
April 2016 VA examination did not use required Goldmann visual field testing and appears to have only one visual field recording; it also failed to perform the required two visual acuity recordings/analysis where near vision is two steps worse than distance.
Because the claim onset predates the December 2008 VA regulatory changes, the pre-2008 criteria govern from Jan 1, 2008 to April 14, 2016; for April 15, 2016 onward both old and new criteria must be considered and the most favorable applied.
Board found the April 2016 exam insufficient under both pre-2008 and post-2008 rules and remanded for a new, compliant examination and readjudication.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the record contains adequate evidence to rate visual field contraction for right eye above 10%	Veteran contends current impairment warrants >10% rating based on service-connected Coat's disease	VA relied on April 2016 exam results but those are procedurally deficient	Remand: exam insufficient; additional compliant testing required
Which rating schedule governs the claim period	Veteran implicitly seeks most favorable criteria; initial claim predates 2008 rule changes	VA applied some post-2008 criteria in 2016 but must apply pre-2008 rules for earlier period	Pre-2008 criteria govern Jan 1, 2008–Apr 14, 2016; from Apr 15, 2016 both old and new must be considered and the more favorable applied (Kuzma rule)
Whether the April 2016 VA exam complied with regulatory test requirements	Veteran argues exam findings should be adequate to decide appeal	April 2016 exam did not use Goldmann or required automated perimetry, did not chart required meridians, and lacked required repeat acuity testing/explanation	Exam fails to meet either pre- or post-2008 evidentiary standards; new exam ordered
Whether further development is required before deciding rating	Veteran requests decision on merits based on existing record	VA/Board finds record incomplete and development discretionary but necessary	Further VA examination and readjudication required; claimant given opportunity to respond

Kuzma v. Principi, 341 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (where multiple rating schemes could apply, apply the scheme most favorable to the veteran)
Kowalski v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 171 (2005) (VA has discretion to order a medical examination when necessary to decide a claim)
Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999) (veteran retains right to submit additional evidence and argument after a remand)