The Veteran is seeking compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for vision loss in the left eye resulting from cataract surgery at a VA medical facility on July 10, 2001. The case has been remanded due to incomplete records and need for further development.
The deciding factor: The claim requires additional evidence related to the FTCA lawsuit and compliance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.361.
- Claimed conditions
- vision loss in the left eye
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- May 10, 2010
- Citation
- 1017221
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. Read the original VA decision (opens in a new tab) using citation 1017221.
What this means for you
A remand sends an issue back for more development, often a new examination or missing records. It does not award the benefit or decide the final outcome. The original decision explains the additional work ordered.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Denied
The Board denied compensation under 38 U.S.C. §1151 for vision loss in the left eye, finding that there was no evidence of negligence or fault on the part of VA and that the Veteran's condition was not caused by VA care.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate notice regarding how to establish service connection for aggravation of a congenital disorder.
- Granted
The Board has granted service connection for dizzy spells, finding that the Veteran's lay statements regarding his in-service motorcycle accident and chronic symptoms are credible. The claim for vision loss in the left eye is remanded due to the need for a VA examination.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining records from the VA Regional Office and VAMC, as well as Social Security Administration records. A new VA opinion is also needed to address whether the complications of the July 2001 cataract surgery were reasonably foreseeable.
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.