The Veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 is denied because the cataract surgery performed on his left eye was not provided by a VA facility or employee, and therefore does not meet the requirements of the statute.
The deciding factor: The cataract surgery performed at a private hospital under contract with VA did not meet the legal criteria for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 as it was not provided by a Department facility or employee within the meaning of the regulation.
- Claimed conditions
- blindness of both eyes, cataract
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- July 1, 2009
- Citation
- 0924695
This is a plain-language summary generated by AI from a public Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision. It can contain errors — always verify against the original. Look up the original decision on VA.gov (opens in a new tab) using citation 0924695.
What this means for you
A denial is a starting point, not the end of the road. You can see why this claim fell short — and, if you are still inside the one-year window, the appeal lanes that may remain open to you.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Dismissed
The Veteran's appeal for service connection for fatigue was dismissed. His headaches, IBS, GERD, allergic rhinitis, sinus, and sleep apnea were all granted. The left knee disability and cataract claims are still pending.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's claim for an initial compensable disability rating for his service-connected eye disability, including cataract with meibomian gland dysfunction and dry eye syndrome, is being remanded due to a duty to assist error. The Board finds that relevant VA treatment records from VistA Imaging are missing.
- Denied
The appeal for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for open angle glaucoma, retinal detachment, and cataract (eye disability) was denied as the evidence did not support a finding that these conditions were caused by VA's carelessness or negligence.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient opinions regarding the etiology of the Veteran's eye disabilities, specifically his cataracts and hypertensive retinopathy.
Free starter guide for your own claim
Reading this because you were denied or under-rated? Get the plain-English next steps — your appeal options, the deadline that protects you, and how appeals like yours turn out. One email, no spam.
We will only use this to send the guide. No spam, unsubscribe any time. We never sell your information.
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.