Glaucoma decisions — 2020

The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate medical opinions regarding the Veteran's vision disabilities. The case will be reviewed with a new VA medical opinion.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a bilateral eye condition, including glaucoma, finding that the evidence did not support a causal link to his service-connected disabilities.

The Board has granted the Veteran's application to reopen his claim for service connection of various conditions, including headache disorder, glaucoma, bacteria in eyes (eye twitching), COPD, sinus disorder, nervous disorder, sleep disorder, fatigue and lack of energy, prostate cancer, cramping of legs and toes, tingling over the entire body, leg disorder, and numbness of the arms. However, service connection for these conditions has been denied as there is no credible evidence linking them to his military service.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings and effective dates were denied. The Board found that the current disability ratings adequately reflected the severity of his service-connected conditions.

The Board has remanded the case due to uncertainty regarding the impact of the Veteran's service-connected bilateral dry eye syndrome on his other eye conditions, including cataracts, macular scar, pinguecula, arcus senilis, and glaucoma. The case will be returned for further development.

The Board denied service connection for a back disorder, cataracts, glaucoma, diabetes mellitus, and bipolar disorder. The Veteran did not have current diagnoses of these conditions at the time of the appeal.

The Veteran's appeals for left knee condition, right knee condition, cervical spine with radiculopathy, lumbar spine condition, respiratory condition, glaucoma (claimed as secondary to respiratory condition), stomach ulcer, and GERD have all been dismissed.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's appeal due to insufficient information regarding his service in the Puerto Rico Army National Guard, which is necessary for proper adjudication of all appealed issues.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient reasoning in the previous VA opinion regarding the Veteran's eye disability. The examiner needs to provide a new opinion that specifically states whether it is at least as likely as not (probability of 50 percent or more) that any eye disorder is related to the Veteran’s service.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral elbow disability and an increased rating for bilateral glaucoma. For the elbow, the evidence did not show a current diagnosis or functional impairment related to service. For the glaucoma, the Veteran had visual field contraction but remained within the 31-45 degree range, warranting a 30% rating.

The Board has remanded the cases due to incomplete information regarding the Veteran's Reserve and National Guard service. The claims will be reviewed again with a focus on verifying her periods of Active Duty Training (ACDUTRA) and Indefinite ACDUTRA (INACDUTRA).

The Board has remanded the cases for additional development, including obtaining private treatment records and issuing a Supplemental Statement of the Case.

The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate medical opinions regarding whether the Veteran's current eye disabilities are related to service, including environmental exposures during service in Vietnam and Southwest Asia.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for glaucoma (claimed as eye condition) secondary to service-connected diabetes mellitus has been remanded due to insufficient evidence regarding whether the glaucoma was aggravated by the service-connected DM.,The Veteran's claim for service connection for any acquired psychiatric disorder has also been remanded due to insufficient evidence regarding whether the psychiatric disorders are related to his active service.

The Veteran's employment during the pendency of the appeal prevented a determination on his claim for TDIU prior to January 17, 2018. The Board denied the claim as he failed to provide necessary evidence.