The Veteran's left eye visual field defect is not deemed to be caused by VA negligence or fault, and therefore compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for this condition is denied.
The deciding factor: The March 2016 VA examiner concluded that the Veteran's left eye visual defects are less likely than not due to carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, error in judgement or similar instance of fault on the part of the VA during the May 2010 TURP and treatment following.
- Claimed conditions
- left eye visual field defect
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- March 28, 2018
- Citation
- 1818972
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 1818972.
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 has remanded the case due to non-compliance with previous directives and the need for an adequate VA opinion regarding the left eye visual field defect.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran is seeking compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for a left eye visual field defect resulting from May 2010 transurethral resection of prostate at the Charleston VA Medical Center. The case has been remanded to obtain additional medical opinions and address issues related to carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill or similar incidence of fault on the part of VA during the surgery.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for his service-connected lumbar myositis, psychoneurosis and conversion hysteria, residuals of shrapnel wounds of the left thigh and pelvis with retained foreign bodies and scars, and residuals of shell fragment wounds of the right thigh and left leg. The veteran was also denied entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claim for an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for his service-connected coronary artery disease, finding that the evidence did not support a higher rating based on the severity of his condition.
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.