Glaucoma decisions — 2012

The Board has remanded the case for a VA examination to determine if the Veteran's eye disorders are caused or aggravated by his service-connected diabetes mellitus.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for a bilateral eye disorder and left foot pes planus were denied. The Board found no evidence of current disabilities or in-service incurrences that would support these claims.

The Veteran's POAG is proximately due to or the result of service-connected diabetes mellitus. The Board has granted service connection for POAG.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including VA examinations to determine the nature and etiology of any current glaucoma and erectile dysfunction, and their relationship to service-connected diabetes mellitus.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including an eye examination to determine the relationship between his glaucoma and service-connected bilateral photosensitivity with a left chorioretinal scar.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for various conditions, including diabetes mellitus type II and peripheral neuropathy, were denied as the evidence did not support a finding of service connection based on exposure to Agent Orange or other presumptive conditions.

The Board has granted service connection for glaucoma as secondary to the Veteran's service-connected diabetes mellitus. The initial rating for chronic adjustment disorder remains at 10 percent.

The Veteran's glaucoma has been rated at 50 percent since April 15, 2005.

The Board found no evidence of a nexus between the Veteran's glaucoma and his period of active service, including any reported flash burns to the eyes during service. The June 2011 VA examiner opined that the current diagnosis of glaucoma is not caused by or related to the in-service eye injuries.

The Board has remanded the case due to a need for another hearing before the Veterans Law Judge.

The Board has remanded the claims for glaucoma and hypertension due to inadequate opinions regarding their etiology. The Veteran is presumed exposed to Agent Orange, but not to any conditions listed as presumptive under that exposure.

The Board found no evidence linking the Veteran's current conditions to his military service and denied all claims for service connection.

The Veteran's claims for service connection are being remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining VA treatment records and scheduling medical examinations.

The Board found that a bilateral eye disorder did not have its onset in or is otherwise attributable to service, and thus denied the Veteran's claim for service connection.

The Board has decided to remand the Veteran's claims due to insufficient evidence regarding his exposure to herbicide agents in Thailand and for a medical examination to determine if his brain tumor is related to service. The hearing loss and glaucoma claims are also deferred until the service connection claim for the brain tumor is resolved.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals has remanded the case due to issues related to the timeliness of a substantive appeal for service connection claims secondary to diabetes mellitus. The Veteran's claim will be reviewed again by the RO, and any additional development required will be undertaken.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for scheduling a hearing before the Board of Veterans' Appeals.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for Type II diabetes mellitus and glaucoma are being remanded due to the need for VA examinations to determine if these conditions were incurred or aggravated by his periods of active duty, including ACDUTRA.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining VA treatment records and determining the dates of active duty for training and inactive duty for training during unverified National Guard service. A medical examination is also required to determine if the Veteran's current glaucoma is related to his military service.

The Veteran's additional left eye disability, diagnosed as glaucoma, was not caused by VA treatment and is therefore not compensable under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151.