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.
The deciding factor: The decision is based on the need for a thorough examination and reasoned medical explanation from a VA examiner addressing specific aspects of the Veteran's claim, including his assertions about the anesthesia used during surgery and its potential impact on his vision.
- Claimed conditions
- left eye visual field defect
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- July 16, 2019
- Citation
- 19154613
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 19154613.
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.
- Denied
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.