The Veteran's loss of vision in the left eye following an intravitreal injection is not considered to be due to VA carelessness, negligence, or similar fault. The Veteran has no service-connected disabilities and therefore cannot meet the criteria for a TDIU.
The deciding factor: The Board found that the Veteran did not incur additional disability as a result of VA's carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, error in judgment, or similar instance of fault on the part of VA, or an event not reasonably foreseeable. As such, his claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 was denied.
- Claimed conditions
- loss of vision in the left eye
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- January 25, 2018
- Citation
- 1804972
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 1804972.
What this means for you
A final Board denial may be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, generally within 120 days of the Board mailing date. A Supplemental Claim with new and relevant evidence is a separate option. Another Higher-Level Review of the Board decision is not available. Check your own notice: this historical decision does not set your deadline.
What you can do next
Use your own notice and decision stage. A remanded issue is not a final court-appealable denial. VA review guidance and CAVC filing instructions (U.S. federal; reviewed October 7, 2026).
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board remanded the Veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for an additional disability (left eye vision loss and related conditions) allegedly caused by a July 2020 VA surgical procedure. The remand was necessary to obtain missing informed consent documentation from VA's Vista Imaging system and to obtain a more thorough medical opinion addressing whether the claimed disability resulted from VA fault or an unforeseeable event.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Board denied service connection for all claimed conditions, including hypertension, hypothyroidism, loss of vision in the left eye, prostate cancer, and metastatic bone cancer. The decision was based on a lack of evidence linking these conditions to military service.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has determined that the VA medical opinions are inadequate and as such, the RO should have obtained clarifying opinions regarding whether the YAG capsulotomy treatment was in fact conducted too early. The Veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 is remanded to obtain additional clarification from an appropriate medical professional.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has determined that the VA medical opinions are inadequate and as such, the RO should have obtained clarifying opinions regarding whether the YAG capsulotomy treatment was in fact conducted too early. The Veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 is remanded to obtain additional clarification from an appropriate medical professional.
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.