Glaucoma decisions — 2020

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient opinions regarding the etiology of the Veteran's bilateral eye disorders, specifically diabetic retinopathy and whether they are caused or aggravated by his service-connected diabetes mellitus type II.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for service connection for erectile dysfunction, glaucoma, and hypertension as secondary to his service-connected residuals of prostate cancer. The Veteran is also seeking an increased disability rating for his service-connected residuals of prostate cancer.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for higher ratings and earlier effective dates due to insufficient evidence in the record, particularly regarding visual field testing results and right hip disability examination.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings for bilateral open-angle glaucoma and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) were denied as the evidence did not meet the criteria for a higher disability rating.

The Board has denied service connection for cataracts and glaucoma, but has remanded the claims for constipation and GERD.

Service connection for degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine and lumbar spine arthritis is granted, effective from September 29, 2017. Service connection for glaucoma was withdrawn.

The Board has granted service connection for the Veteran's bilateral non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION) as it is at least as likely as not related to his military service.

The Veteran's initial claim for a compensable rating for left orbital fracture residuals was denied. A subsequent increased rating to 20 percent as of March 30, 2015, and an increase in glaucoma rating were granted. The case is remanded for additional visual field testing.

The Board has remanded the claims of service connection for right and left shoulder disabilities, a back disability, and a bilateral eye disability to include glaucoma due to incomplete development. The appeal is also remanded for consideration of the claim for TDIU.

The Board has remanded the issues of service connection for a back disorder, an eye disorder (glaucoma), and an acquired psychiatric disorder. The Veteran's claims are currently pending.,Service connection is denied for all three conditions as there is no evidence linking them to service.

The Veteran's bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy is granted service connection. The Veteran's type two diabetes mellitus, bilateral open angle glaucoma, and tinnitus are not granted increased ratings. The Veteran's sinusitis, tonsillectomy residuals, right wrist Dequervain's syndrome, right ring finger fracture, erectile dysfunction, and right epididymitis status post epididymectomy do not warrant increased ratings. A TDIU is granted from October 1, 2007 to February 28, 2013, and from January 22, 2018 on.

The Veteran's bilateral foot disorder and acquired psychiatric disorder are granted as service-connected.,The Veteran's right wrist disorder, bilateral shoulder disorder, neck disorder (secondary to service-connected ankle disorders), low back disorder (secondary to service-connected ankle disorders), and bilateral knee disorder (secondary to service-connected ankle disorders) are remanded for further development.,Compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 is granted for right eye glaucoma.

The Veteran's claim for a higher rating for diabetic proliferative retinopathy is granted, but his claim for a higher rating for diabetes mellitus and compensable rating for diabetic proliferative retinopathy prior to May 13, 2018 are both remanded.

The Board has remanded the claim for entitlement to service connection for glaucoma due to additional development, including obtaining an addendum opinion from a VA ophthalmologist regarding whether the Veteran's primary open angle glaucoma either pre-existed his service or had its onset during his period of active duty training (ACDUTRA).

The Board has denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for glaucoma and bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, finding that there is no evidence to support these claims. The decision also notes that additional development is needed for the hearing loss claim.