11-06 255
11-06 255
| Board of Vet. App. | Jan 31, 2017Background
- Veteran served on active duty Jan 1965–Jan 1969 and appeals denial of service connection for a bilateral eye disability.
- Service records: Jan 1965 entrance vision 20/20; June 1968 complaint of bilateral eye pain for ~3 years with visual acuity 20/70 and refraction recommended.
- Veteran contends he never needed glasses before service and attributes eye problems to service, including exposure to gas/gas chambers in firefighting school.
- Multiple VA examinations were obtained: Nov 2008 (diagnosed glaucoma and pseudophakia but provided inadequate rationale), Dec 2014 (glaucoma, cataract; attributed to age/diabetes but omitted analysis of superimposed service injury and gas exposure), Dec 2016 (similar findings but again failed to address superimposed disease or in‑service gas exposure).
- Board previously remanded for more thorough opinions (Sept 2014, Sept 2016) but examiners did not comply with remand instructions; Board finds examinations inadequate and orders another remand for a detailed medical opinion and readjudication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Veteran is entitled to service connection for a bilateral eye disability | Veteran asserts eye problems began in service and were caused/exacerbated by service (including gas exposure); he never needed glasses before service | RO/VA examiners conclude glaucoma and cataracts are age/diabetes related or not related to service but prior exams lacked full rationale and did not address superimposed service injury or gas exposure | Board remanded: prior VA opinions were inadequate under Stegall/Barr; obtain new exam addressing diagnoses, whether conditions are refractive/congenital, whether a superimposed injury occurred in service, and relation to gas exposure; readjudicate after exam |
Key Cases Cited
- Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998) (VA must comply with Board remand instructions)
- Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007) (VA must provide an adequate medical examination/opinion once it undertakes to do so)
- Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999) (appellant may submit additional evidence after remand)