Veterans’ RightsAn independent resource for veterans
← All decisions
Granted

The Veteran's service-connected diabetes mellitus is found to have caused or aggravated his hypertensive retinopathy, thus granting service connection for this condition.,There is no evidence linking the Veteran’s glaucoma suspect and dry eye syndrome to active service or any incident of service. Service connection is denied for these conditions.,The relationship between the Veteran's disability manifested by pseudophakia/bilateral cataracts and his diabetes mellitus remains unclear, necessitating further examination on remand.,Service connection for small vessel disease cannot be established due to insufficient evidence linking this condition to active service or any incident of service.

The deciding factor: The Veteran's service-connected diabetes mellitus is found to have caused his hypertensive retinopathy, as evidenced by the July 2017 VHA opinion.,There is no medical evidence connecting the Veteran’s glaucoma suspect and dry eye syndrome to active service or any incident of service. The July 2017 VHA opinion concluded that these conditions are not related to service-connected diabetes mellitus.,The type of cataract(s) present in the Veteran's eyes must be determined through examination, as the July 2017 VHA opinion could not determine this due to lack of information on the specific nature of his cataracts.,Further medical evaluation is needed to establish a connection between the Veteran’s small vessel disease and active service or any incident of service.

Claimed conditions
Hypertensive Retinopathy, Glaucoma Suspect, Dry Eye Syndrome, Pseudophakia/Bilateral Cataracts, Small Vessel Disease
How they argued it
Direct service connection
Exposure basis
None
Rating assigned
None in this decision
Decision date
March 7, 2019
Citation
19116264

Veterans Law Judge

R. FEINBERG

Decisions by this judge: 2,017 · Granted: 36% (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 19116264.

What this means for you

A grant means the Board agreed the veteran was entitled to the benefit. Decisions like this show the kind of evidence and arguments that tend to succeed for claims like it.

What you can do next

Related decisions

Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.

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.