The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate opinion regarding the etiology of dermatochalasis and the fact that a facial nerve block was not performed during the right eye cataract surgery.
The deciding factor: An ophthalmologist is required to provide an opinion on whether the Veteran's right eyelid dermatochalasis was proximately due to carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, error in judgment, or similar instance of fault on the part of the Department in furnishing the hospital care.
- Claimed conditions
- dermatochalasis, residuals of right eye surgery
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- March 5, 2021
- Citation
- 21012912
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 21012912.
What this means for you
A remand sends an issue back for more development, often a new examination or missing records. It does not award the benefit or decide the final outcome. The original decision explains the additional work ordered.
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 a duty to assist error and will need to obtain additional private treatment records related to the Veteran's eye disabilities.
- Whole decision: Partly granted
The Board denied service connection for dermatochalasis, meibomian gland dysfunction, and blepharitis. The claims for lumbosacral strain, left lower extremity radiculopathy (sciatic nerve), right shoulder tendinopathy, diabetes, and prostate cancer with urinary incontinence status-post prostatectomy were remanded.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board remands the claim for service connection of a bilateral eye condition other than dry eye syndrome to ensure compliance with previous directives, including obtaining an addendum opinion that addresses the likely etiology of the claimed conditions.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a bilateral eye disability, finding that none of his current eye conditions are related to his military service.
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.