DISEASES OF CONJUNCTIVA KERATITIS AND CORNEAL OPACITIES

MICHAEL MARTIN · 2026 · Case ID: A26039027

GRANTED

Summary

The Veteran served from November 1975 to July 1982 and December 1982 to October 1997. This case concerns the propriety of a reduction in the disability rating for bilateral cataract surgery and corneal keratitis from 40 percent to 30 percent. The Veteran contended that his condition did not improve. The Board reviewed the procedural requirements for rating reductions, noting that the RO followed the correct procedures by proposing the reduction, notifying the Veteran, and providing a 60-day period for additional evidence. The Board found that the rating had been in effect for less than five years, making the specific five-year rule protections inapplicable. The Board then examined the substantive criteria, noting that for ratings less than five years old, reexamination only needs to show actual improvement for a reduced rating to be appropriate. The Board considered the January 2020 VA examination, which indicated the Veteran's condition was post-operative with replacement intraocular lenses, and his corrected vision was 20/40 in both eyes. The examiner noted the keratitis disrupted the tear film but found no functional limitations. The Board found that the evidence demonstrated improvement, supporting the reduction. While the Board acknowledged the Veteran's contention of scars impacting vision, it found the evidence against this claim. The Board also noted that the Veteran's 30 percent rating is protected due to being in effect for over five years, preventing further reduction below that level. Therefore, the Board found the reduction from 40 percent to 30 percent proper.

Rationale

Reduction from 40% to 30% was proper due to improvement.; Rating was in effect for less than five years, making specific protections inapplicable.; Corrected vision of 20/40 in both eyes does not meet criteria for 10% rating based on visual acuity alone.; At least one incapacitating episode requiring treatment warrants a 10% rating.

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Diagnostic Code

6027

Docket No.

210805-176852

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26039027
Decision Date: 04/27/26 Archive Date: 04/27/26

DOCKET NO. 210805-176852
DATE: April 27, 2026

ORDER

The reduction of the rating for bilateral cataract surgery, corneal keratitis from 40 percent to 30 percent was proper.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's bilateral cataract surgery, corneal keratitis showed actual improvement.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for the reduction of the rating for bilateral cataract surgery, corneal keratitis from 40 percent to 30 percent was proper. 38 U.S.C. § 1155, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102, 4.3, 4.7, 4.97, Diagnostic Code 6027.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran had active service from November 1975 to July 1982 and from December 1982 to October 1997.

This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of the September 2020 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In the August 5, 2021 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. On March 20, 2025 the Veteran withdrew the hearing request.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the September 2020 RO decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or any 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 RO 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 claim[s], considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

Neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any issues with regard to the duty to notify or duty to assist as they pertain to the issues considered in this decision. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that "the Board's obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board... to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board."); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to a duty to assist argument).

The analysis in this decision focuses on the most relevant evidence and on what the evidence shows or does not show with respect to the issues denied in this decision. The Veteran should not assume that evidence that is not explicitly discussed in this decision has been overlooked. See Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122 (2000) (noting that the law requires only that reasons for rejecting evidence favorable to the claimant be addressed).

1. The reduction of the rating for bilateral cataract surgery, corneal keratitis from 40 percent to 30 percent was proper.

The Veteran contends that his bilateral cataract surgery, corneal keratitis did not improve.

Procedures

There are certain procedures that must be followed before the reduction in the evaluation of a service-connected disability can be effectuated. Where the reduction in evaluation of a service-connected disability is considered warranted and the lower rating would result in a reduction or discontinuance of compensation payments, a rating proposing the reduction or discontinuance will be prepared setting forth all material facts and reasons. The beneficiary will be notified of the contemplated action and furnished detailed reasons therefore and given 60 days for the presentation of additional evidence to show that compensation payments should be continued at the present level. If additional evidence is not received within that period, final rating action will be taken, and the award will be reduced or discontinued effective the last day of the month in which a 60-day period
are certain procedures that must be followed before the reduction in the evaluation of a service-connected disability can be effectuated. Where the reduction in evaluation of a service-connected disability is considered warranted and the lower rating would result in a reduction or discontinuance of compensation payments, a rating proposing the reduction or discontinuance will be prepared setting forth all material facts and reasons. The beneficiary will be notified of the contemplated action and furnished detailed reasons therefore and given 60 days for the presentation of additional evidence to show that compensation payments should be continued at the present level. If additional evidence is not received within that period, final rating action will be taken, and the award will be reduced or discontinued effective the last day of the month in which a 60-day period from the date of notice to the beneficiary of the final rating action expires. 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(e).

The evidence demonstrates that the procedural requirements for a rating reduction were followed. In the April 2020 rating decision, the RO proposed to reduce the rating for bilateral cataract surgery, corneal keratitis, from 40 percent to 30 percent. The Veteran was notified of the proposed reduction by a April 2020 letter, and he was notified he had 60 days to provide additional evidence, and 30 days to request a personal hearing.

In May 2020, the Veteran submitted private treatment records for his non-service-connected retinal condition.

The rating decision that decreased the evaluation to 30 percent was issued in August 2020, and the Veteran was notified of this action in a letter dated in August 2020. The effective date was November 1, 2020, beyond the last day of the month in which the 60-day period from the date of notice of the final rating action expired. The Board notes that the initial proposal letter was dated in April 2020. Therefore, the procedural requirements for a reduction were met. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(e).

In determining the propriety of a previous rating, the entire record as to medical history should be considered to ascertain whether the most recent examination is indeed a full and complete depiction of the level of disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.344(a). Likewise, in such cases provided doubt remains, after affording due consideration to all the evidence developed by the several items discussed in the preceding paragraph (section 3.344(a)), the rating agency will continue the rating in effect under specified procedures. 38 C.F.R. § 3.344(b).

The 40 percent disability rating was in effect from July 23, 2019 and the reduction was proposed in April 2020. Therefore, as the rating was in effect for less than five years, the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.344(a) and (b) are not applicable.

Substantively

Substantively, the standard to be applied to a rating reduction decision depends on how long the rating has been in effect. When a rating has continued at the same rating level for five years or more, the underlying VA examination supporting a reduction must be at least as complete as the VA examination that formed the basis for the original rating, and there must be a finding that the condition at issue is not likely to return to its previous level. 38 C.F.R. § 3.344(a), (b), (c); Kitchens v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 320, 324 (1995). A reduction may be made if the evidence indicates that it is reasonably certain that improvement of the underlying injury or condition will be maintained under the "ordinary conditions of life." 38 C.F.R. § 3.344(a). However, if a rating level has been in effect for less than five years, the regulatory requirements under 38 C.F.R. § 3.344(a) and (b) are inapplicable. 38 C.F.R. § 3.344(c). In such cases, reexamination need only show actual improvement for a reduced rating to be appropriate. See id.

In considering the propriety of a reduction, the Board must focus on the evidence of record available to the RO at the time the reduction was effectuated, although post-reduction medical evidence may be considered for the limited purpose of determining whether the condition has demonstrated actual improvement. Cf. Dofflemyer, at 281-82. Care must be taken, however, to ensure that a change in an examiner's evaluation reflects an actual change in the veteran's condition, and not merely a difference in the thoroughness of the examination or in descriptive terms, when viewed in relation to the prior disability history. In addition, it must be determined that an improvement in a disability has actually occurred, and that such improvement actually reflects an improvement in the veteran's ability
the propriety of a reduction, the Board must focus on the evidence of record available to the RO at the time the reduction was effectuated, although post-reduction medical evidence may be considered for the limited purpose of determining whether the condition has demonstrated actual improvement. Cf. Dofflemyer, at 281-82. Care must be taken, however, to ensure that a change in an examiner's evaluation reflects an actual change in the veteran's condition, and not merely a difference in the thoroughness of the examination or in descriptive terms, when viewed in relation to the prior disability history. In addition, it must be determined that an improvement in a disability has actually occurred, and that such improvement actually reflects an improvement in the veteran's ability to function under the ordinary conditions of life and work. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.13; see also, Brown v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 5 Vet. App. 413, 420-22 (1993); Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589, 594 (1991). Moreover, if the VA examination report justifying the rating reduction is inadequate, the reduction cannot be upheld. See, Tucker v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 201 (1992) (holding that the failure of the examiner in that case to review the claims file rendered the reduction decision void ab initio).

Significantly, in a rating reduction case, VA has the burden of establishing that the disability has improved. This is in stark contrast to a case involving a claim for an increased (i.e., higher) rating, in which it is the Veteran's responsibility to show the disability has worsened. A rating reduction case focuses on the propriety of the reduction and is not the same as an increased rating issue. See, Peyton v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 282, 286 (1991).

Legal Criteria for Cataracts

The Veteran's status-post bilateral cataract surgery is evaluated under Diagnostic Code 6027 for cataracts. Where there are replacement lenses present, as here, postoperative cataracts are evaluated under the General Rating Formula for Disease of the Eye. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.97, Diagnostic Code 6027. Under the General Rating Formula, an eye disorder is to be rated on the basis of either visual impairment due to the particular condition or on incapacitating episodes, whichever results in a higher evaluation.

Before May 13, 2019, the General Rating Formula for DCs 6000 through 6009 instructs to evaluate on the basis of either visual impairment due to the particular condition or on incapacitating episodes, whichever results in a higher evaluation. A Note following the General Rating Formula indicates that, for VA purposes, an incapacitating episode is a period of acute symptoms severe enough to require prescribed bed rest and treatment by a physician or other healthcare provider.

Under the revised criteria, the General Rating Formal for Diseases of the Eye instructs to evaluate on the basis of either visual impairment due to a particular condition or on incapacitating episodes, whichever results in a higher evaluation. Note (1) indicates that, for the purposes of evaluations under 38 C.F.R. § 4.79, an incapacitating episode is an eye condition severe enough to require a clinic visit to a provider specifically for treatment purposes. Note (2) indicates 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) indicates that, for the purposes of evaluating visual impairment due to a particular condition, refer to 38 C.F.R. § 4.75-4.78 and to § 4.79, DCs 6061-6091.

The General Rating Formula for Diseases of the Eye instructs to evaluate based on either visual impairment due to a particular condition or on incapacitating episodes, whichever results in a higher evaluation. 38 C.F.R. § 4.79.

The evaluation of visual impairment is based on impairment of visual acuity (excluding developmental errors of refraction), visual field, and muscle function. 38 C.F.R. § 4.75(a).

Evaluation of visual acuity is based on corrected distance vision with central fixation, and the visual acuity measurements for each eye are applied to the table for Impairment of Central Visual Acuity. 38 C.F.R. § 4.76(b)(1). Generally, the table is divided into steps corresponding to different levels of visual acuity for one eye, and each step is further divided into subsections of visual acuity for the other eye, with corresponding ratings. Where a
38 C.F.R. § 4.79.

The evaluation of visual impairment is based on impairment of visual acuity (excluding developmental errors of refraction), visual field, and muscle function. 38 C.F.R. § 4.75(a).

Visual acuity

Impairment of central visual acuity is evaluated on the basis of corrected distance vision with central fixation, even if a central scotoma is present. 38 C.F.R. § 4.76. Visual acuity is evaluated from noncompensable to 100 percent based upon the degree of the resulting impairment of visual acuity or field loss, pain, rest-requirements, or episodic incapacity, combining an additional rating of 10 percent during continuance of active pathology. 38 C.F.R. § 4.79, DCs 6061 to 6066.

A 10 percent disability rating is warranted for impairment of central visual acuity in the following situations: (1) if corrected visual acuity is 20/100 in one eye and 20/40 in the other eye; (2) if corrected visual acuity is 20/70 in one eye and 20/40 in the other eye; (3) if corrected visual acuity is 20/50 in one eye and 20/40 in the other eye; (4) or when corrected visual acuity is 20/50 in both eyes. 38 C.F.R. § 4.84a, DCs 6078, 6079; 38 C.F.R. § 4.79, DC 6066.

A 20 percent disability rating is warranted for impairment of central visual acuity in the following situations: (1) if corrected visual acuity is 15/200 in one eye and 20/40 in the other eye; (2) if corrected visual acuity is 20/200 in one eye and 20/40 in the other eye; (3) if corrected visual acuity is 20/100 in one eye and 20/50 in the other eye; or (4) corrected visual acuity of 20/70 in one eye and 20/50 in the other eye. 38 C.F.R. § 4.84a, DCs 6077, 6078; 38 C.F.R. § 4.79, DC 6066.

A 30 percent disability rating is warranted for impairment of central visual acuity in the following situations: (1) corrected visual acuity in both eyes is 20/70; (2) corrected visual acuity in one eye is 20/100 and the other eye is 20/70; (3) corrected visual acuity in one eye is 20/200 in one eye and 20/50 in the other eye; (4) corrected visual acuity in one eye is 15/200 and 20/50 in the other eye; (5) corrected visual acuity in one eye is 10/200 and 20/40 in the other eye; (6) corrected visual acuity in one eye is 5/200 and 20/40 in the other eye; or (7) blindness of one eye and corrected vision to 20/40 in the other eye. 38 C.F.R. § 4.84a, DCs 6070, 6074, 6076, 6077, 6078; 38 C.F.R. § 4.79, DCs 6064, 6065, 6066.

A 40 percent disability rating is warranted for impairment of central visual acuity in the following situations: (1) corrected visual acuity of one eye is to 20/200 and 20/70 in the other eye; (2) corrected visual acuity of one eye is to 15/200 and 20/70 in the other eye; (3) corrected visual acuity in one eye is to 10/200 and 20/50 in the other eye; (4) corrected visual acuity is to 5/200 in one eye and 20/50 in the other eye; or (5) blindness or anatomical loss of one eye and corrected vision in the other eye to 20/50 and 20/40, respectively, in the other eye. 38 C.F.R. § 4.84a, DCs, 6066, 6070, 6073, 6076; 38 C.F.R. § 4.79, DCs 6064, 6065, 6066.

A 50 percent disability rating is warranted for impairment of central visual acuity in the following situations: (1) corrected visual acuity is to 20/100 in both eyes; (2) corrected visual acuity is to 10/200 in one eye and to 20/70 in the other eye; (3) corrected visual acuity is to 5/200 in one eye and 20/70 in the other eye; or (4) blindness or anatomical loss of one eye and corrected vision in the other eye to 20/70 and 20/50, respectively. 38 C.F.R. § 4.84a, DCs, 6065, 6069, 6073, 6076, 6078; 38 C.F.R. § 4.79, DCs 6064, 6065, 6066.

A 60 percent disability rating is warranted for impairment of central visual acuity in the following situations: (1) corrected visual acuity of one eye is to 20/200 and the other eye is 20/100; (2) corrected visual acuity of one eye is to 15/200 and the other eye is to 20/100; (3) corrected visual acuity of one eye is to 10/200 and the other eye is to 20/100; (4) corrected visual acuity of one eye is to 5/200 and the other eye is to 20/100; or (5) blindness or anatomical loss of one eye and corrected vision in the other eye to 20/100 or 20/70 or 20/100, respectively. 38 C.F.R. § 4.84a, DCs, 6065, 6069, 6073, 6076; 38 C.F.R. § 4.79, DCs 6064, 6065, 6066.

A 70 percent disability rating is warranted for impairment of central visual acuity in the following situations: (1) corrected visual acuity of one eye is to 20/200 and the other eye is 20/200; (2) corrected visual acuity of one eye is to 15/200 and the other eye is to 20/200; (3) corrected visual acuity of one eye is to 10/200 and the other eye is to 20/200; (4) corrected visual acuity of one eye is to 5/200 and the other eye is to 20/200; or (5) blindness or anatomical loss of one eye and corrected vision in the other eye to 20/200. 38 C.F.R. § 4.84a, DCs 6064, 6068, 6072, 6075; 38 C.F.R. § 4.79, DCs 6064, 6065, 6066.

An 80 percent disability rating is warranted for impairment of central visual acuity in the following situations: (1) corrected visual acuity of one eye is to 15/200 and the other eye is 15/200; (2) corrected visual acuity of one eye is to 10/200 and the other eye is to 15/200; (3) corrected visual acuity of one eye is to 5/200 and the other eye is to 15/200; or (4) blindness or anatomical loss of one eye and corrected vision in the other eye to 15/200. 38
.R. § 4.79, DCs 6064, 6065, 6066.

A 90 percent disability rating is warranted for impairment of central visual acuity in the following situations: (1) corrected visual acuity of one eye is to 10/200 and the other eye is 10/200; (2) corrected visual acuity of one eye is to 5/200 and the other eye is to 10/200; or (3) blindness or anatomical loss of one eye and corrected vision in the other eye to 10/200. 38 C.F.R. § 4.84a, DCs 6064, 6068, 6072, 6075; 38 C.F.R. § 4.79, DCs 6064, 6065, 6066.

A 100 percent disability rating is warranted for impairment of central visual acuity in the following situations: (1) corrected visual acuity of one eye is to 5/200 and the other eye is 5/200; (2) blindness or anatomical loss of one eye and corrected vision in the other eye to 5/200; or (3) blindness or anatomical loss of both eyes. 38 C.F.R. § 4.84a, DCs 6061, 6062, 6063, 6067, 6071; 38 C.F.R. § 4.79, DCs 6064 and 6065.

Incapacitation

Where incapacitating episodes have a total duration of at least 1 week, but less than 2 weeks, during the past 12 months, a 10 percent rating is warranted. Where incapacitating episodes have a total duration of at least 2 weeks, but less than 4 weeks, during the past 12 months, a 20 percent rating is warranted. Where incapacitating episodes have a total duration of at least 4 weeks, but less than 6 weeks, during the past 12 months, a 40 percent rating is warranted. Where incapacitating episodes have a total duration of at least 6 weeks during the past 12 months, a 60 percent rating is warranted.

A Note following the General Rating Formula indicates that, for VA purposes, an incapacitating episode is a period of acute symptoms severe enough to require prescribed bed rest and treatment by a physician or other healthcare provider.

Under the revised criteria, the General Rating Formula for Diseases of the Eye instructs to evaluate on the basis of either visual impairment due to a particular condition or on incapacitating episodes, whichever results in a higher evaluation.

Where there are 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 rating is warranted. Where there are 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 rating is warranted. Where there are 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 rating is warranted. Where there are documented incapacitating episodes requiring 7 or more treatment visits for an eye condition during the past 12 months, a 60 percent rating is warranted.

Note (1) indicates that, for the purposes of evaluations under 38 C.F.R. § 4.79, an incapacitating episode is an eye condition severe enough to require a clinic visit to a provider specifically for treatment purposes. Note (2) indicates 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) indicates that, for the purposes of evaluating visual impairment due to a particular condition, refer to 38 C.F
are documented incapacitating episodes requiring 7 or more treatment visits for an eye condition during the past 12 months, a 60 percent rating is warranted.

Summary of Relevant Evidence

In a January 2020 VA examination, the examiner indicated that the Veteran has a diagnosis of bilateral cataract surgery, corneal keratitis. The Veteran reported his symptoms are stable. The examiner indicated that the Veteran's cataract condition was post-operative with a replacement intraocular lens (pseudophakia). There is no aphakia or dislocation of the crystalline lens. The examiner indicated that the Veteran's pseudophakia is not a factor in the decrease in visual acuity. In the past 12 months, the Veteran has had at least 1 but less than 3 documented medical visits for treatment for an unspecified retinal condition involving the left eye requiring treatment from a retinal specialist. The Veteran's uncorrected distance was 20/50 in the right and 20/70 in the left. His corrected vision was 20/40 in both eyes. The slit lamp and external eye exam revealed bilateral corneal keratitis. The examiner indicated that the keratitis causes an irregular surface and disrupts the integrity of the tear film. The Veteran does not have any documented visual field defects. The examiner indicated that there are no known effects from the claimed service-related disabilities that limit the veteran to function in an occupational environment and no functional limitations or impairments.

In May 2020, the Veteran submitted private treatment records for his non-service-connected retinal condition.

Analysis

The Board finds that a disability rating in excess of 30 percent is not warranted for the Veteran's bilateral cataract surgery, corneal keratitis (eye disability). The Board finds that while the RO noted that the Veteran has aphakia or dislocation of the crystalline lens, the August 2020 VA examination report indicated that the Veteran does not have this symptom. The Veteran's corrected vision is 20/40 which does not meet the criteria of a 10 percent disability rating. The Veteran does not have a visual field disability or a muscle function disability. The August 2020 VA examiner indicated that the Veteran has at least 1 but less than three documented incapacitating episodes attributable to an unspecified retinal condition. The Board notes that the Veteran is not service connected for a retinal disability. The Board also notes that the Veteran submitted private treatment records regarding this condition. However, resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor he had at least one incapacitating episode in the past 12 months, a 10 percent disability rating would be warranted. The Board acknowledges the Veteran's contention that he has scars that impact his vision. However, the probative evidence is against finding that the service-connected cataracts have resulted in a scar that impairs his vision.

No other diagnostic codes are for consideration, because disabilities specifically listed in the rating schedule may only be rated under Diagnostic Codes which specifically pertain to them. Scott v. Wilkie, 920 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Copeland v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 333, 335 (2015)). Thus, no higher or separate evaluations are warranted for the Veteran's service-connected cataracts.

While the Veteran's bilateral cataract surgery, corneal keratitis, manifests at most as a 10 percent disability rating, the Board acknowledges that the Veteran was in receipt of a 30 percent disability rating from November 1997 until it was increased in July 2019, and thus his 30 percent disability rating is protected. Specifically, a disability which has been continuously rated at or above any evaluation of disability for 20 or more years for compensation purposes under laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs will not be reduced to less than such evaluation except upon a showing that such rating was based on fraud. 38 CFR 3.951(b). Thus, while the Veteran's bilateral cataract surgery, corneal keratitis disability manifests at most as a 10 percent disability rating, the Veteran's 30 percent disability rating is protected
10 percent disability rating, the Board acknowledges that the Veteran was in receipt of a 30 percent disability rating from November 1997 until it was increased in July 2019, and thus his 30 percent disability rating is protected. Specifically, a disability which has been continuously rated at or above any evaluation of disability for 20 or more years for compensation purposes under laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs will not be reduced to less than such evaluation except upon a showing that such rating was based on fraud. 38 CFR 3.951(b). Thus, while the Veteran's bilateral cataract surgery, corneal keratitis disability manifests at most as a 10 percent disability rating, the Veteran's 30 percent disability rating is protected.

The Board finds that the reduction of the rating for bilateral cataract surgery, corneal keratitis from 40 percent to 30 percent was proper, and the restoration of the 40 percent is not warranted.

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). If the evidence is not in approximate balance or nearly equal in the veteran's favor, the claim must be denied. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

(Continued on the next page)

In this case, the Board does not find that there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence, as the Veteran's bilateral cataract surgery, corneal keratitis disability showed improvement.

MICHAEL MARTIN

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board M. Quist, Counsel

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.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer