The Board has granted an initial 10 percent disability rating for the Veteran's bilateral nuclear cataracts, effective from the date of the decision.
The deciding factor: The evidence showed that the Veteran's bilateral nuclear cataracts did not contribute to visual impairment or other symptoms such as diplopia and visual field contraction. However, they caused eye strain and sensitivity to light which were rated under Diagnostic Code 6036 (status post corneal transplant).
- Claimed conditions
- bilateral nuclear cataracts
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- 10%
- Decision date
- August 19, 2022
- Citation
- 22047332
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 22047332.
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.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board remands the claim for service connection for eye disabilities, to include retinopathy, bilateral nuclear cataracts, bilateral dermatochalasis, dry eye, and pinguecula, as the prior VA medical opinion regarding aggravation was found to be conclusory and lacked necessary medical reasoning.
- Partly granted
The veteran's claim for a higher rating for diabetes mellitus type II was denied due to failure to attend a VA examination. The claims for service connection for a cardiovascular disability and TDIU were remanded for further development.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the case due to a duty-to-assist error and needs additional medical opinions regarding the etiology of the Veteran's bilateral nuclear cataracts and chorioretinal scars.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate medical opinions regarding the Veteran's eye disabilities and their relation to his service in Vietnam. The case will be reviewed again with a focus on the PACT Act provisions for toxic exposure risk activities.
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.