The Veteran's current conditions were not caused by VA medical treatment, and the proximate cause of his additional disability was not an event reasonably foreseeable. Therefore, he is not entitled to compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151.
The deciding factor: VA medical care did not result in the Veteran's current conditions, and there was no unforeseeable event or risk that caused his additional disability.
- Claimed conditions
- central retinal vein occlusion of the right eye, scar of the right lower eyelid, Bell's palsy with corneal drying
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- December 2, 2010
- Citation
- 1045142
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 1045142.
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.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for service connection for eye disabilities as secondary to his service-connected diabetes mellitus, type II due to insufficient medical opinions and a failure to obtain all relevant records.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran claims compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for central retinal vein occlusion of the right eye, alleging that this condition was caused by a stress test performed at VA's Muskogee VAMC in September 2004 due to his hypertension. The Board has decided to remand the case for further development and consideration.
- Granted
The Board has determined that the Veteran likely has central retinal vein occlusion of the right eye, which is proximately due to or the result of his service-connected diabetes mellitus.
- Remanded (sent back)
The appeal is remanded to the RO for further development of evidence regarding the alleged eye surgeries in April 2002 or May 2002.
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.