The Board has remanded the case for an addendum opinion to determine if any current eye condition other than corneal scarring and dry eye syndrome is related to service, including a December 1985 injury. The examiner should consider the Veteran's statements that his in-service injury affected both eyes.
The deciding factor: The Board requires an addendum opinion to determine the etiology of any current eye condition other than corneal scarring and dry eye syndrome, which may be related to service, including a December 1985 injury.
- Claimed conditions
- residuals of right eye injury, bilateral pinguecula, dry eye syndrome
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- July 15, 2022
- Citation
- 22040584
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 22040584.
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.
- Dismissed
The Board dismissed the appeal of entitlement to service connection for dry eye syndrome claimed as visual impairment, including blurry vision, blindness, double vision due to procedural error. The Veteran's claim for service connection for sleep apnea was denied because there is no evidence of a current diagnosis of sleep apnea.
- Partly granted
The Veteran's claim for an initial compensable rating for OSA is denied as his sleep apnea has not been manifested by persistent daytime hypersomnolence or required use of a breathing assistance device such as a CPAP machine.,The Veteran's claims for service connection for dry eye syndrome and an increased rating for left knee disability are remanded due to procedural errors in the adjudication process.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the etiology of the Veteran's dry eye syndrome and conjunctivitis, including any potential service connection or toxic exposure.
- 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.
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.