A VA § 1151 claim for vision loss can involve much more than whether surgery went wrong. It can require a close examination of conflicting medical findings, the risks described in consent forms, and the instructions a veteran received after treatment.
In a recent appeal, I challenged a Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision denying my client compensation for loss of vision in his right eye following an Ahmed valve procedure. The Joint Motion for Remand (JMR), filed November 2, 2026, reflects agreement between VA’s attorneys and me that the Board inadequately explained its decision in three important respects.
Case status: JMR filed; Court action pending. The parties have asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) to vacate the denial and return the claim to the Board. The filing does not establish a Court-ordered remand or an award of benefits.
What is a VA § 1151 claim for vision loss?
Under 38 U.S.C. § 1151, a veteran may receive compensation for qualifying additional disability caused by VA medical care, paid in the same manner as if that disability were service connected. In a treatment claim, the requirements include a causal connection to VA care and a proximate cause involving qualifying fault by VA or an event that was not reasonably foreseeable. A bad outcome after treatment does not, by itself, establish entitlement.
Those are distinct inquiries. Whether a provider exercised appropriate care and whether a complication was reasonably foreseeable require their own analysis. My client’s appeal shows why the Board must examine both the medical opinion’s conclusions and the reasoning supporting them.
Challenging contradictions in the VA medical opinion
The Board relied on an October 2024 VA medical opinion to deny the claim. The examiner’s response to the foreseeability question pointed against my client. Yet the accompanying rationale stated that the additional disability could not have been foreseen by a reasonable healthcare provider.
The Board dismissed that favorable language as a typographical error. It relied on another section of the report describing hemorrhage as a common complication of Ahmed valve surgery.
The JMR explains why that reasoning was inadequate. The foreseeability opinion appeared in its own section and contained several sentences of explanation. The Board did not provide medical support for treating the statement as a typo or for applying the examiner’s separate discussion of negligence to the foreseeability issue.
The report raised a second concern: it described tube blockage as a late postoperative complication while noting that my client’s hemorrhage blocking the tube occurred the day after surgery. The Board did not address whether that timing made the opinion inconsistent or inadequately explained.
My appellate work focuses on details like these because they can change how an opinion should be evaluated. A medical report’s unfavorable conclusion does not eliminate the need to address favorable reasoning or an unexplained inconsistency. For related issues, read my guide to appealing a Board decision based on an inadequate VA medical opinion.
Does signing a consent form defeat a § 1151 claim?
The Board also found that hemorrhage and vision loss were foreseeable because the consent forms my client signed listed bleeding inside the eye and loss of vision as surgical risks.
The parties agreed that the Board inadequately explained its reliance on those forms. Listing a risk was relevant, but the Board treated it as the sole basis for resolving foreseeability.
38 C.F.R. § 3.361(d)(2) directs VA to consider what a reasonable healthcare provider would have foreseen, whether the event was an ordinary treatment risk, and whether a reasonable provider would have disclosed that type of risk during informed consent.
As the JMR explains, the regulation does not make a signed consent form dispositive standing alone. The requested remand calls for consideration of all relevant evidence concerning whether my client’s additional disability resulted from an event that was not reasonably foreseeable.
The agreement does not establish that his complication was unforeseeable. It identifies the need for a properly explained decision addressing the evidence.
Before blaming missed eye drops, examine the instructions
The Board also relied on the examiner’s opinion attributing the additional disability to my client’s delay in resuming glaucoma eye drops. It cited treatment records reflecting variable compliance with what the Board acknowledged was a complicated eye-drop regimen.
That reasoning left an essential question unanswered: what medical instructions were communicated to my client, and were they properly given?
38 C.F.R. § 3.361(c)(3) addresses additional disability caused by failure to follow properly given medical instructions. The JMR explains that the Board attributed the additional disability to the eye-drop regimen without addressing that requirement.
The parties therefore requested that the Board adequately consider the regulation when evaluating causation. The issue requires attention to the actual instructions and evidence, rather than an assumption drawn from a general history of medication use.
What the Joint Motion for Remand would require
The motion asks the Court to vacate the Board’s March 11, 2026, denial and return the claim for readjudication. If granted, it would require the Board to address the medical opinion’s adequacy, consider the relevant foreseeability evidence, and examine whether the medical instructions were properly given.
A Joint Motion for Remand at the CAVC can secure further consideration of a claim when the Court grants it. It does not itself establish negligence, resolve entitlement to § 1151 compensation, or award benefits. This motion identifies errors in the Board’s explanation; the ultimate merits remain unresolved.
Appealing a Board denial of § 1151 compensation
This appeal illustrates the importance of reading the medical reasoning, comparing it with the treatment timeline, and testing the Board’s explanation against the governing regulation. In a complicated vision-loss claim, an unexplained contradiction or an unanswered question about postoperative instructions can be central to the appeal.
My practice focuses exclusively on CAVC appeals. If the Board has denied your § 1151 claim, I can review its decision for appealable error. Learn about my CAVC representation or request a free Board decision review.
Source: Joint Motion for Remand filed November 2, 2026, pages 1–5. This case study discusses the filing and does not report a subsequent Court order.
Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. A remand requires further proceedings and does not itself award benefits.
