BVA Case 24-4780: Back

The parties further agreed that the Board failed to address whether the appellant's macular degeneration was caused by in-service exposure to Agent Orange.

3 Case:24-4780 Page: 4 of 10 Filed:10/22/2025 The Board,in May 2024, dismissed the appeal regarding disability compensation on a direct basis for coronary artery disease, hypertension,diabetes mellitus,and diabetic retinopathy, and the Board denied disability compensation for right and left eye macular degeneration.

Parties'Arguments Regarding coronary artery disease, hypertension,diabetes mellitus,and diabetic retinopathy,the appellant argues that the Board erroneously characterized the matters on appeal as downstream effective date issues,and therefore the Board erred by dismissing his appeal as to those matters.

Regarding bilateral macular degeneration,he avers that the Board erred in determining that a TERA examination was not warranted and that the Board used the wrong standard in making that determination.

Next, he maintains that the December 2009 VA examiner's opinion is inadequate because the examiner did not address the following:(1)whether his eye condition is directly related to the vision problems documented during service, (2)his 2022 Board hearing testimony,(3)the specific photography chemicals that he was exposed to during service,and (4)medical records reflecting a diagnosis of central areolar choroidal dystrophy.

Alternatively,he posits that the Board failed to reconcile the conflicting medical evidence and determine whether a new examination was necessary.

For his part,the Secretary concedes that the Board failed to substantially comply with the terms of the JMPR by dismissing the appeal with respect to disability compensation for coronary artery disease,hypertension,diabetes mellitus,and diabetic retinopathy.

However,the Board determined that,to the extent that the appellant had sought service connection for those disabilities,the benefits sought were awarded in full.