The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient explanation regarding the etiology of the Veteran's detached retina and other bilateral eye disabilities, including whether they are related to service.
The deciding factor: The VA examiner did not meaningfully discuss the Veteran’s specific assertions regarding his in-service head injury being the cause of his vision problems.
- Claimed conditions
- bilateral eye disability, tractional retinal detachment of the left eye with membrane peel, epiretinal membrane, pseudophakia, suspected glaucoma
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- October 17, 2020
- Citation
- 20067362
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 1,614 · Granted: 35% (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 20067362.
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 has decided to remand the case due to duty-to-assist errors, including failing to obtain SSA records and VA medical opinions regarding whether the Veteran's left eye disability is secondary to his service-connected hypertension.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to a duty-to-assist error, specifically failing to obtain an opinion regarding whether the Veteran's current bilateral eye disability is related to service exposure to burn pits. The AOJ should obtain such an opinion.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. The Board has also remanded the issue of service connection for a bilateral eye disability due to an inadequate medical opinion.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient medical opinions regarding the Veteran's bilateral eye condition, which is presumed to be related to service. The Veteran seeks service connection for glaucoma and pseudophakia, but the VA examiners' opinions are deemed inadequate.
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.