CATARACT EXTRACTION

Summary

The Veteran, an Army Veteran who served from October 1974 to October 1976 and had multiple subsequent periods of service concluding in October 2005, appeals the denial of service connection for residuals of bilateral cataract surgery. The Veteran's cataracts were surgically treated in June 2016 and May 2019. The Veteran contends that the cataracts, and consequently the surgical residuals, are secondary to his service-connected diabetes mellitus. The Board noted that the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) had made favorable findings regarding the current diagnosis of pseudophakia and/or intraocular lens presence with a residual macular scar, and the service connection of diabetes mellitus. The Board reviewed private treatment records indicating the cataracts were associated with diabetes, with one physician noting they were at least partly a result of diabetes. VA treatment records also suggested a link between the cataracts and diabetes, noting the increased incidence of cataracts in diabetic patients. While a July 2020 VA examiner provided a negative opinion, the Board found it inconsistent with the treatment records and afforded it no probative value. The Board concluded that the evidence established the cataracts were a result of the service-connected diabetes mellitus, thus granting service connection for the residuals of bilateral cataract surgery.

Rationale

Favorable findings from AOJ regarding current diagnosis and service-connected diabetes mellitus are binding.; Private and VA treatment records indicate cataracts were associated with diabetes.; VA examiner's negative opinion was inconsistent with treatment records and afforded no probative value.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26023140
Decision Date: 03/13/26	Archive Date: 03/13/26

DOCKET NO. 210427-155510
DATE: March 13, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for residuals of bilateral cataract surgery is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's bilateral cataracts are at least as likely as not related to his service-connected diabetes mellitus.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for residuals of bilateral cataract surgery have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.310.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran had active service in the Army from October 1974 to October 1976, from November 1990 to May 1991, from October 1991 to February 1992, from April 1992 to January 1993, from January 1993 to February 1995, and from April 2004 to October 2005.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2021 rating decision. In the April 27, 2021, VA Form 10182, Notice of Disagreement, the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held on October 28, 2024, and a transcript is of record.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the April 2021 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran [or representative] at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the Board hearing, or (2) more than 90 days following the hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 20.801. 

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. 

The Board notes the issue on appeal was characterized as bilateral cataracts. However, due to the surgical removal of his cataracts prior to his claim, the Veteran did not have a diagnosis for cataracts during the period on review. Therefore, the issue on appeal has been recharacterized to include the residuals from the surgery to correct his cataracts, which reflects the Veteran's current symptoms. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). 

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. Generally, the evidence must show: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service (nexus). Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 505 (1995).

Additionally, a disability may also be service connected on a secondary basis by demonstrating that the disability is either (1) proximately due to or the result of an already service-connected disease or injury or (2) aggravated by an already service-connected disease or injury. See Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995); 38 C.F.R. § 3.310.

Entitlement to service connection for residuals of bilateral cataract surgery.

The Veteran seeks entitlement to service connection for his cataracts, which he contends are secondary to his service-connected diabetes mellitus. He had his cataracts surgically treated in June 2016 and May 2019 and contends he suffers from residuals following this surgery.

Initially, the Board observes in the decision on appeal the AOJ made favorable findings, including that the Veteran had a
 or the result of an already service-connected disease or injury or (2) aggravated by an already service-connected disease or injury. See Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995); 38 C.F.R. § 3.310.

Entitlement to service connection for residuals of bilateral cataract surgery.

The Veteran seeks entitlement to service connection for his cataracts, which he contends are secondary to his service-connected diabetes mellitus. He had his cataracts surgically treated in June 2016 and May 2019 and contends he suffers from residuals following this surgery.

Initially, the Board observes in the decision on appeal the AOJ made favorable findings, including that the Veteran had a current diagnosis for pseudophakia and/or presence of intraocular lens with a residual macular scar due to cataract surgery, and that the primary disability of diabetes mellitus was service connected. Under the AMA, the Board is bound by favorable findings made by the AOJ in the absence of evidence of clear and unmistakable error. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c). 

Next, for secondary service connection the evidence must show the Veteran's cataracts, and thus the residuals from his cataract surgery, are proximately due to, the result of, or aggravated by, an already service-connected disease or injury.

In this regard, private treatment records indicate that the Veteran's cataracts were noted to be "early" and were associated with his diabetes mellitus. Notably, in a July 2019 treatment record the Veteran's treating physician noted his cataracts were, at least in part, a result of diabetes. Additionally, VA treatment records also suggest the Veteran's cataracts were related to his diabetes. A July 2016 treatment record noted the Veteran had followed the path of the known increase in the incidence of cataracts in diabetic patients. While an August 2020 VA examiner provided a negative opinion, the Board finds this inconsistent with the treatment records, and thus is afforded no probative value. 

As such, the evidence indicates that the Veteran's cataracts were a result of his service-connected diabetes mellitus. Accordingly, entitlement to service connection for the residuals of bilateral cataract surgery is warranted, and the claim should be granted. The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.

 

 

B.T. KNOPE

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	A. Patterson, Associate Counsel