Glaucoma Board decisions

The veteran's claim for reopening his right eye glaucoma service connection was granted due to the submission of new and material evidence.

The Board has decided to remand the case for further examination and clarification of whether negligence or lack of proper skill by VA caused post-operative complications following left eye cataract extraction with intraocular lens implantation.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have glaucoma that was present in service, manifested within one year of discharge from service, or is otherwise related to active duty service.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for glaucoma, refractive error, degenerative disc disease of the lumbosacral spine, right shoulder disorder, left shoulder disorder, and arthritis as secondary to his service-connected shrapnel wounds.

The Board denied service connection for a bilateral eye injury and denied an increased evaluation for bilateral hearing loss. The veteran's current conditions are not related to his military service.

The veteran's claims for increased ratings were denied. The RO found that the evidence did not support a higher rating for his service-connected conditions.

The Board has denied the veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral glaucoma as secondary to his service-connected diabetes mellitus, finding that there is no competent medical evidence showing a causal relationship between the two conditions.

The Board has denied the veteran's request to reopen his claim for service connection for glaucoma, finding that the new evidence submitted does not provide a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim.

The VA denied the veteran's claim for an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for right eye blindness with light perception only due to trauma, as his current evaluation under Diagnostic Code 6070 is already at its maximum.

The veteran's entitlement to an effective date of December 1, 1999 for special monthly pension benefits based on the need for regular aid and attendance is granted.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an increased evaluation for his eye disability and service connection for photophobia. The current rating of 20 percent is appropriate based on the visual acuity impairment, but not higher.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not currently experience PTSD and his glaucoma disability did not develop during service. Therefore, service connection for both conditions is denied.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for reopening his service connection claims for glaucoma and pes planus due to lack of new and material evidence.

The case is being remanded due to the need for an advisory opinion from the Director, Compensation and Pension Services regarding the veteran's eye disability. The RO must also obtain any relevant treatment records.

The Board has denied the veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of head injury, including glaucoma, as there is no medical evidence relating his current diagnosis to any in-service event.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for an eye disability, to include glaucoma and uveitis, finding that there was no evidence linking these conditions to his military service.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete records and requests for additional information from the veteran.

The Board denied the appellant's claims for service connection for the cause of the veteran's death, accrued benefits, and Dependents' Educational Assistance under 38 U.S.C.A. Chapter 35 due to a lack of evidence linking any conditions causing the veteran's death to his military service.

The Board has determined that the veteran's medical condition did not preclude transfer to a VA Medical Center for continuation of treatment, but due to an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence, the veteran may be granted payment of unauthorized medical expenses.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for glaucoma and for the cause of his death, finding that there was no evidence to support these claims. The appellant is also not entitled to burial benefits due to lack of entitlement under applicable regulations.