Case A26033435

Summary

The veteran, who served honorably in the U.S. Army from October 1967 to May 1969, appeals the denial of an earlier effective date for his service-connected primary open angle glaucoma with pseudophakia and the initial rating assigned for this condition. The veteran sought an earlier effective date, but the Board found that the earliest claim for glaucoma was filed on March 13, 2024, with no prior intent to file or claim for any eye disability. The Board denied the request for an earlier effective date. Regarding the rating, the veteran contended he was entitled to more than the 30 percent initially assigned. The Board reviewed the May 2024 VA examination, which showed visual acuity impairments and a visual field defect, warranting a combined 50 percent rating. However, the Board also considered incapacitating episodes, noting 11 treatment visits for glaucoma between May and October 2024, which met the criteria for a 60 percent rating under the General Rating Formula for Diseases of the Eye. The Board found this rating best reflected the disability's manifestations. The Board dismissed the claim for Total Disability based on Individual Unemployability (TDIU) as moot, as the veteran was already receiving TDIU and housebound benefits based on other service-connected disabilities.

Rationale

No claim or intent to file prior to March 13, 2024; Earliest claim filed March 13, 2024; No evidence of entitlement prior to March 13, 2024

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26033435
Decision Date: 04/10/26	Archive Date: 04/10/26

DOCKET NO. 250819-575183
DATE: April 10, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to an effective date prior to March 13, 2024, for the award of service connection for primary open angle glaucoma with pseudophakia is denied.

Entitlement to an initial rating of 60 percent from March 13, 2024, for primary open angle glaucoma with pseudophakia is granted.

Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is dismissed as moot. 

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The evidence persuasively shows that VA received the Veteran's initial claim for service connection for primary open angle glaucoma with pseudophakia on March 13, 2024.

2. The evidence persuasively shows that the Veteran did not file a formal or informal claim for entitlement to service connection for primary open angle glaucoma with pseudophakia, or any other eye disability, prior to March 13, 2024.

3. The Veteran's service-connected primary open angle glaucoma with pseudophakia is manifested by documented incapacitating episodes requiring 7 or more treatment visits for an eye condition during the previous 12 months. 

4. Throughout the appeal period the Veteran was in receipt of a total disability rating based on a TDIU for his service-connected acquired psychiatric disorder and special monthly compensation (SMC) at the housebound rate as statutorily authorized for other service-connected disabilities having an evaluation of 60 percent or more and involving different anatomical segments or bodily systems.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date prior to March 13, 2024, for the award of service connection for primary open angle glaucoma with pseudophakia have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155, 3.400. 

2. The criteria for entitlement to an initial rating of 60 percent, effective from March 13, 2024, for primary open angle glaucoma with pseudophakia have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.321, 4.1-4.14, 4.25, 4.75-4.79, Diagnostic Code 6013.

3. The criteria for dismissal as moot have been met for the appeal for entitlement to a TDIU. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1155, 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 3.350, 4.16, 20.205.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served honorably on active duty in the United States Army from October 1967 to May 1969. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a January 2025 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). 

The rating decision on appeal was issued in January 2025 and constitutes an initial decision; therefore, the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies.

In the August 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. On December 18, 2025, the Veteran withdrew the hearing request.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the January 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or representative within 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal of the hearing request. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(b). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to receipt of the withdrawal, or (2) more than 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(b), 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 (VA Form 20-0995) 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 claims, considering the new
 either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to receipt of the withdrawal, or (2) more than 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(b), 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 (VA Form 20-0995) 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 claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. 

Effective Date

The statutory guidelines for the determination of an effective date of an award are set forth in 38 U.S.C. § 5110. In general, the effective date for a grant of service connection is the day following the date of separation from active service or the date entitlement arose, if the claim is received within one year after separation from service. Otherwise, it is the date of receipt of the claim, or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (a), (b). The reference to "the date entitlement arose" is not defined in the current statute or regulation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has interpreted it as the date when the claimant met the requirements for the benefits sought; this is determined on a "facts found" basis. See McGrath v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 28, 35 (2000); see also 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (a). 

Prior to March 24, 2015, VA regulations recognized both formal and informal claims. Any communication or action, indicating intent to apply for one or more benefits under the laws administered by VA was considered an informal claim if it identified the benefit sought. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a).

The Board notes that VA amended its adjudication regulations on March 24, 2015, to require that all claims governed by VA's adjudication regulations be filed on standard forms prescribed by the Secretary, regardless of the type of claim or posture in which the claim arises. See 79 Fed. Reg. 57660 (Sept. 25, 2014). The amendments, however, are only effective for claims and appeals filed on or after March 24, 2015. Prior to that date, the amendments are not applicable and the regulations in effect prior to March 24, 2015, will be applied.

Initial Ratings and Diagnostic Codes

Disability ratings are determined by the application of rating criteria set forth in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (38 C.F.R. Part 4) based on the average impairment of earning capacity. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. 38 U.S.C. § 1155.

Where service connection has been granted and the assignment of an initial rating is disputed, separate ratings may be assigned for separate periods of time based on the facts found. In other words, the ratings may be "staged." Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 125-126 (1999). Where there is a question as to which of two ratings shall be applied, the higher rating will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. The Board has considered the evidence of record and finds that staged ratings are not warranted as the evidence does not show that the severity of the Veteran's disability changed throughout the appeal period. 

In view of the number of atypical instances it is not expected, especially with the more fully described grades of disabilities, that all cases will show all the findings specified. Findings sufficiently characteristic to identify the disease and the disability therefrom, and above all, coordination of rating with impairment of function will, however, be expected. 38 C.F.R. § 4.21. The medical as well as industrial history is to be considered, and a full description of the effects of the disability upon ordinary activity is also required. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.10.

The assignment of a particular diagnostic code is "completely dependent on the facts of a particular case," and the Board may choose the diagnostic code to apply, as long as it is supported by reasons and bases as well as the evidence of record. Butts v. Brown, 5?Vet. App.?532,
 disability therefrom, and above all, coordination of rating with impairment of function will, however, be expected. 38 C.F.R. § 4.21. The medical as well as industrial history is to be considered, and a full description of the effects of the disability upon ordinary activity is also required. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.10.

The assignment of a particular diagnostic code is "completely dependent on the facts of a particular case," and the Board may choose the diagnostic code to apply, as long as it is supported by reasons and bases as well as the evidence of record. Butts v. Brown, 5?Vet. App.?532, 538 (1993). One diagnostic code may be more appropriate than another based on such factors as an individual's relevant medical history, diagnosis, and demonstrated symptomatology. With certain limitations, it is permissible to switch diagnostic codes to reflect more accurately a claimant's current symptoms. See Read v. Shinseki, 651 F.3d 1296, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2011). 

However, the evaluation of the same disability under several diagnostic codes, known as pyramiding, must be avoided; separate ratings may be assigned for distinct disabilities resulting from the same injury only where the symptomatology for one condition is not duplicative or overlapping with the symptomatology of the other condition. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.14; see also Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 259, 261-62 (1994); Lyles v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 107 (2017) (holding that 38 C.F.R. § 4.14 prohibits paying compensation twice for the same symptoms or functional impairment).

1. Entitlement to an effective date prior to March 13, 2024, for the award of service connection for primary open angle glaucoma with pseudophakia is denied.

The Veteran generally contends that he is entitled to an earlier effective date for the award of service connection for primary open angle glaucoma with pseudophakia. 

To preserve an effective date, an intent to file a claim may be submitted to VA. Upon receipt of the intent to file a claim, VA will furnish the claimant with the appropriate application form prescribed by the Secretary. If VA receives a complete application form prescribed by the Secretary, appropriate to the benefit sought, within one-year of receipt of the intent to file a claim, VA will consider the complete claim filed as of the date the intent to file a claim was received. Only one complete claim for a benefit (e.g., compensation, pension) may be associated with each intent to file a claim for that benefit, though multiple issues may be contained within a complete claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155.

By way of procedural background, the Veteran separated from service in 1969. On December 21, 2023, VA received a properly completed VA Form 21-526EZ, Fully Developed Claim, for entitlement to increased ratings for hearing loss, COPD, hypertension, and a sleeping disorder. The December 2023 VA Form 21-526EZ was accompanied by a letter from the Veteran's representative of record that identified the same claims as the form. Neither the December 2023 VA Form 21-526EZ nor the letter from the representative made any reference to or otherwise indicated that the Veteran was filing a claim for entitlement to service connection for any eye disease disability. 

Then, on March 13, 2024, VA received a properly completed VA Form 21-526EZ for entitlement to service connection for a glaucoma disability. The March 2024 VA Form 21-526EZ was accompanied by a letter from the Veteran's representative of record noting that the Veteran sought to open a claim for glaucoma. 

The AOJ denied the Veteran's claim in a May 2024 rating decision. Then, on November 13, 2024, within one year of the May 2024 rating decision, VA received a properly completed VA Form 20-0995 Supplemental Claim Application which included "service connection for glaucoma" as the only specific issue for review and identified May 20, 2024, as the date of the prior VA decision notice. 

In a January 27, 2025, rating decision, the AOJ granted service connection for primary open angle glaucoma with pseudophakia and assigned a 30 percent rating from March 13, 2024. The Veteran initiated the present appeal for an earlier effective date by submitting a timely August 2025 VA Form 10182, Notice of Disagreement. 

There is no probative evidence, indication, or argument that the Veteran
 rating decision, VA received a properly completed VA Form 20-0995 Supplemental Claim Application which included "service connection for glaucoma" as the only specific issue for review and identified May 20, 2024, as the date of the prior VA decision notice. 

In a January 27, 2025, rating decision, the AOJ granted service connection for primary open angle glaucoma with pseudophakia and assigned a 30 percent rating from March 13, 2024. The Veteran initiated the present appeal for an earlier effective date by submitting a timely August 2025 VA Form 10182, Notice of Disagreement. 

There is no probative evidence, indication, or argument that the Veteran submitted any claims for service connection prior to March 13, 2024; nor is there any probative evidence, indication, or argument that the Veteran submitted any intent to file a claim for compensation within one year prior to the March 13, 2024, VA Form 21-526EZ. The Board acknowledges that the May 2024 rating decision listed evidence including the December 21, 2023, VA Form 21-526EZ; however, this is an error and not indicative of the actual evidence of record. Although the Veteran submitted a December 21, 2023, VA Form 21-526EZ, the claim form and accompanying letter from the Veteran's representative list only increased rating for hearing loss, COPD, hypertension, and a sleeping disorder, and is silent for any reference to any eye or glaucoma disability. 

Accordingly, the Board finds that the March 13, 2024, VA Form 21-526EZ is the earliest claim for entitlement to service connection for glaucoma received by VA and is the earliest possible effective date for the grant of service connection for glaucoma because the Veteran separated from service in 1969, many years prior to filing his initial claim for service connection for glaucoma, there is no probative evidence that the Veteran submitted any intent to file within one year prior to the March 13, 2024, VA Form 21-526EZ, and there is no probative evidence that the Veteran had any pending claim for entitlement to service connection for glaucoma or any other eye disability prior to March 13, 2024. 

Therefore, the Board finds that the evidence persuasively shows that March 13, 2024, is the earliest effective date for the grant of service-connection for primary open angle glaucoma with pseudophakia based on the March 13, 2024, VA Form 21-526EZ.

2. Entitlement to an initial rating of 60 percent, effective from March 13, 2024, for primary open angle glaucoma with pseudophakia is granted.

The Veteran contends that he is entitled to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for his service-connected primary open angle glaucoma with pseudophakia.

Unless otherwise directed, VA evaluates diseases of the eye under the General Rating Formula for Diseases of the Eye. 38 C.F.R. § 4.79. The General Rating Formula criteria assigns ratings on the basis of either visual impairment due to the particular condition or on incapacitating episodes, whichever results in a higher evaluation. 38 C.F.R. § 4.79. 

In the January 2025 rating decision on appeal, the AOJ awarded service connection for primary open angle glaucoma with pseudophakia and assigned a 30 percent rating from March 13, 2024, based on impairment of visual acuity under Diagnostic Code 6013-6066. Hyphenated diagnostic codes are used when a rating under one code requires use of an additional diagnostic code to identify the basis for the evaluation assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.27. Diagnostic Code 6013 is evaluated under the General Rating Formula for Diseases of the Eye (General Rating Formula). Diagnostic Code 6066 identifies visual acuity in one eye of 10/200 or better under the criteria for Impairment of Central Visual Acuity. 38 C.F.R. § 4.79.

Evaluations for incapacitating episodes range from 10 percent to 60 percent. Where documented incapacitating episodes requiring at least 1 but less than 3 treatment visits for an eye condition during the past 12 months, a 10 percent disability rating is warranted. Where documented incapacitating episodes requiring at least 3 but less than 5 treatment visits for an eye condition during the past 12 months, a 20 percent disability rating is warranted. Where documented incapacitating episodes requiring at least 5 but less than 7 treatment visits for an eye condition during the past 12 months, a 40 percent disability rating is warranted. Where documented incapacitating episodes requiring 
 Acuity. 38 C.F.R. § 4.79.

Evaluations for incapacitating episodes range from 10 percent to 60 percent. Where documented incapacitating episodes requiring at least 1 but less than 3 treatment visits for an eye condition during the past 12 months, a 10 percent disability rating is warranted. Where documented incapacitating episodes requiring at least 3 but less than 5 treatment visits for an eye condition during the past 12 months, a 20 percent disability rating is warranted. Where documented incapacitating episodes requiring at least 5 but less than 7 treatment visits for an eye condition during the past 12 months, a 40 percent disability rating is warranted. Where documented incapacitating episodes requiring 7 or more treatment visits for an eye condition during the past 12 months, a 60 percent disability rating is warranted. Id.

Note (1) under General Rating Formula for Diseases of the Eye clarifies that, for VA purposes, an incapacitating episode is an eye condition severe enough to require a clinic visit to a provider specifically for treatment purposes. Note: (2) provides that "examples of treatment may include but are not limited to: systemic immunosuppressants or biologic agents; intravitreal or periocular injections; laser treatments; or other surgical interventions."  Note: (3) provides that, for the purposes of evaluating visual impairment due to the particular condition, refer to 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.75 through 4.78 and 4.79, Diagnostic Codes 6061-6091. 

Evaluations for visual impairment range from noncompensable to 100 percent based on impairment of visual acuity (excluding developmental errors of refraction), visual field, and muscle function. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.75 through 4.79. To determine the evaluation for visual impairment when both decreased visual acuity and visual field defect are present in one or both eyes and are service connected, separately evaluate the visual acuity and visual field defect (expressed as a level of impaired visual acuity), and combine them under the provisions of § 4.25. 38 C.F.R. § 4.77(c). 

The examination for visual impairment must be conducted by a licensed optometrist or by a licensed ophthalmologist and the examiner must identify the disease, injury, or any other pathologic found. 38 C.F.R. § 4.76 (b). Examination of visual fields or muscle function will be conducted only when there is a medical indication of disease or injury that may be associated with visual field defect or impaired muscle function. Unless medically contraindicated, the fundus must be examined with the Veteran's pupils dilated. Id.

The January 2025 rating decision explained that the assigned 30 percent rating was based on impairment of visual acuity as shown during a May 2024 VA examination. The May 2024 VA examination revealed that the Veteran's left eye corrected near vision was 20/20 (20/20), and left eye corrected far vision was 20/50 (20/50). The Veteran's right eye corrected near vision was 5/200 (5/200) and right eye corrected far vision was 20/100 (20/100). The AOJ also found that the May 2024 VA examination revealed a difference equal to two or more scheduled steps between near and distance corrected vision, with the near vision being worse, and evaluated his right eye far vision as 20/200, based on corrected distance vision adjusted to one step poorer than measured. Based on the applicable rating criteria, the Veteran's impairment of visual acuity warrants a 30 percent rating under Diagnostic Code 6066. See VBMS document titled, "Rating Decision - Narrative," receipt date 01/27/2025; VBMS document titled, "C&P Exam," receipt date 05/07/2024. See also 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.76(b)(3), 4.79, Diagnostic Code 6066.

In addition to impairment of visual acuity, the May 2024 VA examination revealed a documented visual field defect. The Veteran's average concentric contraction with remaining field was approximately 16 degrees (20/100) in the right eye and 37 degrees (20/70) in the left eye. Based on the applicable rating criteria, the Veteran's impairment of visual field warrants a 30 percent rating under Diagnostic Code 6080. See VBMS document titled, "C&P Exam," receipt date 05/07/2024. See also 38 C.F.R. § 4.79, Diagnostic Code 6080. 

Pursuant to the combined ratings table and based on the May 2024 VA examination findings for impairment of visual acuity and impairment of visual field, the Veteran
4 VA examination revealed a documented visual field defect. The Veteran's average concentric contraction with remaining field was approximately 16 degrees (20/100) in the right eye and 37 degrees (20/70) in the left eye. Based on the applicable rating criteria, the Veteran's impairment of visual field warrants a 30 percent rating under Diagnostic Code 6080. See VBMS document titled, "C&P Exam," receipt date 05/07/2024. See also 38 C.F.R. § 4.79, Diagnostic Code 6080. 

Pursuant to the combined ratings table and based on the May 2024 VA examination findings for impairment of visual acuity and impairment of visual field, the Veteran's visual impairment warrants a 50 percent rating under Diagnostic Code 6066-6080. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.25, 4.79. 

There are no other VA examinations or probative evidence that includes measurements of the Veteran's visual acuity and visual field which the Board can apply to the ratings schedule. 

Pursuant to the General Rating Formula, the Board must also consider whether the evidence reveals any incapacitating episodes. To this point, in the 12 months prior to the January 2024 rating decision on appeal, the Veteran's VA treatment records reveal numerous visits for treatment, routine check-ups, and follow-up care with VA ophthalmologists. The Board notes that beginning on May 6, 2024, the Veteran was seen specifically for treatment of his open angle glaucoma as follows: (1) bleb revision surgery on May 6, 2024; (2) injection procedure on post-operative day three; (3) bleb injected diffusely one week post-operative; (3) bandage contact lenses (BCLs) replaced two weeks post-operative; (4) 24mm BCLs replaced three-and-a-half weeks post-operative; (5) BCLs replaced with Kontur 24mm lenses four-and-a-half weeks post-operative; (6) BCLs replaced again five-and-a-half weeks post-operative; (7) then on June 24, 2024, a leak in the bleb was noted and BCL was replaced with new bandage contact lens; (8) on July 1, 2024, the note says that follow-up was without lenses indicating that lenses were removed; (9) on September 30, 2024, Kontur lenses were replaced; (10) on October 7, 2024, Kontur lenses were removed, a pin point leak was noted, and Kontur lenses were replaced; and (11) again on October 24, 2024, the Kontur lenses were removed, a pin point leak was noted, and Kontur lenses were replaced. Between May 2024 and November 2024, which is within the 12 months preceding the January 2025 rating decision on appeal, the Veteran's VA treatment records reveal many other visits, occurring weekly or more frequent, where the record is unclear whether or which specific treatment occurred. Nonetheless, the records persuasively show that from May 6, 2024, through October 24, 2024, the Veteran went to his VA ophthalmologist no less than 11 times for visits specifically for treatment during the 12 months prior to the January 2025 rating decision on appeal. See VBMS documents titled, "CAPRI," receipt dates 06/05/2024 (pages 7, 74, 87 of 147) and 03/17/2025 (pages 49, 50 of 245). 

The Board finds that the Veteran's VA treatment records persuasively show that he experienced incapacitating episode(s) requiring no less than 11 visits to his VA ophthalmologist specifically for treatment of his service-connected glaucoma during the 12 months preceding the January 2025 rating decision on appeal. The Board finds that these 11 visits meet the General Rating Formula definition of "treatment" because they were not just routine check-up visits and the notes show that the VA ophthalmologist performed necessary procedures to treat the Veteran's service-connected eye disease during each of the 11 visits, which are distinct from the records showing many additional visits for follow-up care and routine check-ups without reference to any treatment or procedure. Moreover, they all occurred within the 12 months preceding the January 2025 rating decision on appeal. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.79, General Rating Formula for Diseases of the Eye, Notes (1) and (2). Accordingly, a 60 percent rating is warranted based on incapacitating episode(s) requiring 7 or more treatment visits during the 12 months preceding the rating decision on appeal. Id. 

The Board notes that although the AOJ
 show that the VA ophthalmologist performed necessary procedures to treat the Veteran's service-connected eye disease during each of the 11 visits, which are distinct from the records showing many additional visits for follow-up care and routine check-ups without reference to any treatment or procedure. Moreover, they all occurred within the 12 months preceding the January 2025 rating decision on appeal. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.79, General Rating Formula for Diseases of the Eye, Notes (1) and (2). Accordingly, a 60 percent rating is warranted based on incapacitating episode(s) requiring 7 or more treatment visits during the 12 months preceding the rating decision on appeal. Id. 

The Board notes that although the AOJ assigned a 30 percent rating under Diagnostic Code 6013-6066 for impairment of visual acuity and a rating under Diagnostic Code 6080-6066, which combines ratings for visual field defect and decreased visual acuity warrants a rating of only 50 percent, the General Rating Formula provides for a 60 percent rating for incapacitating episodes requiring 7 or more treatment visits. Here, the evidence persuasively shows that the Veteran's service-connected primary open angle glaucoma with pseudophakia disability has met the criteria for a 60 percent rating under the General Rating Formula throughout the appeal period because the Veteran experienced incapacitating episodes requiring 11 treatment visits during the 12 months preceding the January 2025 rating decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 4.79, Diagnostic Code 6013. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Veteran should be rated at 60 percent under Diagnostic Code 6013 and the General Rating Formula throughout the appeal period, as Diagnostic Code 6013 and the General Rating Formula best reflects manifestations of the Veteran's service-connected primary open angle glaucoma with pseudophakia disability. See Butts and Read, supra.

The Board further notes that rating the Veteran's primary open angle glaucoma with pseudophakia disability under Diagnostic Code 6013 instead of Diagnostic Code 6013-6066 does not reduce the Veteran's rating and, instead, provides for an increased rating throughout the appeal period. Accordingly, an initial 60 percent rating for the Veteran's service-connected primary open angle glaucoma with pseudophakia disability is warranted from March 13, 2024, under Diagnostic Code 6013. The appeal is granted. 

3. Entitlement to a TDIU is dismissed as moot.

The Veteran has contended that entitlement to TDIU is raised by the record. See VBMS document titled, "VA Form 10182 Notice of Disagreement," receipt date 08/19/2025. Accordingly, the Board will consider entitlement to TDIU from the March 13, 2024, date of claim.

Throughout the appeal period, from March 13, 2024, through the January 27, 2025, rating decision on appeal, the Veteran has been in receipt of a TDIU on the sole basis of his service-connected acquired psychiatric disorder and special monthly compensation rated at the statutory housebound rate based on having additional service connected disabilities rated at 60 percent or more involving different anatomical segments or bodily systems than the disability rated for TDIU. 

Although the Veteran was granted a TDIU throughout the appeal period, a TDIU rating for a single disability does not necessarily render entitlement to a TDIU moot as to the Veteran's other service-connected disabilities. See Bradley v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 280 (2008) (holding that there could be a situation where a veteran has a schedular total rating for a particular service-connected disability, and could establish a TDIU rating for another service-connected disability in order to qualify for special monthly compensation (SMC) under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s) by having an "additional" disability of 60 percent or more ("housebound" rate)). 

Here, however, the Veteran was already awarded SMC benefits based on housebound status from March 13, 2024, throughout the remainder of the appeal period. Therefore, entitlement to TDIU for purposes of entitlement to SMC benefits is moot for the entire period on appeal (i.e., March 13, 2024, to January 27, 2025).

 

 

R. Casadei

Acting Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Webb, Katherine S.

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. 


 remainder of the appeal period. Therefore, entitlement to TDIU for purposes of entitlement to SMC benefits is moot for the entire period on appeal (i.e., March 13, 2024, to January 27, 2025).

 

 

R. Casadei

Acting Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Webb, Katherine S.

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.