The Board has granted the veteran's motion to advance his case on the Board's docket and remanded for compliance with instructions in the joint motion. The appeal is now before the RO for further development, including obtaining a medical opinion from a VA ophthalmologist.
The deciding factor: The decision was based on the need to ensure that the evidentiary record is complete and due process considerations are met, as well as applying the Federal Circuit's opinion in Wagner v. Principi and VAOPGCPREC 3-2003 to consider whether the presumption of soundness was properly rebutted.
- Claimed conditions
- retinitis pigmentosa
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- March 17, 2006
- Citation
- 0607830
What this means for you
A grant means the Board agreed the veteran was entitled to the benefit. Decisions like this show the kind of evidence and arguments that tend to succeed for claims like it.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Granted
The Board granted an earlier effective date of January 3, 2001, for service connection for retinitis pigmentosa based on the re-evaluation of previously unassociated service treatment records.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the case due to conflicting opinions regarding whether retinitis pigmentosa is a congenital defect or disease. Additional development, including an addendum opinion from the VA examiner, is needed.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the case due to the need for a VA examination to determine if the Veteran's current bilateral eye disorders, including retinitis pigmentosa and cataracts, had their onset during service or are otherwise related to his military service.
- Granted
The Board has granted service connection for retinitis pigmentosa and denied service connection for a heart condition. The Veteran's current bilateral eye retinitis pigmentosa is considered to have been incurred in service, with the presumption of soundness rebutted due to aggravation during service.
We are not the VA. Veterans’ Rights is an independent resource built for veterans. We are not the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, not part of the government, and not endorsed by any government agency.
This is general information, not legal advice. For advice about your own situation, talk to a VA-accredited representative — many help for free.