The Veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 due to carelessness and neglect by VA personnel is remanded because the October 2015 medical opinion did not address his theory of additional disability caused by a delay in referring him to a retina specialist.
The deciding factor: The Board found that the October 2015 VA medical opinion did not adequately address the Veteran's claim as it focused on treatment from 2012-2014 and failed to consider the crux of his contention regarding a delay in referral for treatment by a retina specialist.
- Claimed conditions
- loss of vision in the left eye
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- October 17, 2019
- Citation
- A19002041
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 1,874 · Granted: 33% (granted or partly granted, in the vetted decisions on this site)
Judge attribution: 2025 complete; earlier years partial.
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 A19002041.
What this means for you
A remand is not a loss. The Board sent the case back for more development — often a new exam or missing records — before making a final decision. Many remands later end in a grant, and the decision spells out exactly what the Board wanted to see.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.