Citation Nr: 1106193 Decision Date: 02/15/11 Archive Date: 02/28/11 DOCKET NO. 09-13 489 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Detroit, Michigan THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for allergic rhinitis. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Marine Corps League ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Marenna INTRODUCTION The appellant had active service from October 1986 to January 1999, and from April 1999 to March 2007. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2007 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Salt Lake City, Utah. Jurisdiction of the case was subsequently transferred to the RO in Detroit, Michigan. FINDING OF FACT There has been demonstration by competent medical, and competent and credible lay, evidence of record that the appellant has allergic rhinitis that is related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW Allergic rhinitis was incurred in active service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131, 1154, 5107 (West 2002 & Supp. 2010); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304 (2010). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Board has thoroughly reviewed all the evidence in the appellant's claims folder. Although the Board has an obligation to provide reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no need to discuss, in detail, each piece of evidence of record. See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the Board must review the entire record, but does not have to discuss each piece of evidence). The analysis below focuses on the most salient and relevant evidence and on what this evidence shows, or fails to show, on the claim. The appellant must not assume that the Board has overlooked pieces of evidence that are not explicitly discussed herein. See Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122 (2000) (the law requires only that the Board address its reasons for rejecting evidence favorable to the appellant). The Board must assess the credibility and weight of all evidence, including the medical evidence, to determine its probative value, accounting for evidence which it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive, and providing reasons for rejecting any evidence favorable to the claimant. Equal weight is not accorded to each piece of evidence contained in the record; every item of evidence does not have the same probative value. When all the evidence is assembled, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the appellant prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against a claim, in which case, the claim is denied. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). I. Veterans Claims Assistance Act (VCAA) The appellant's claim has been granted, as discussed below. As such, the Board finds that any defect related to VA's duties to notify and assist under the VCAA on that claim is moot. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5103, 5103A (West 2002 & Supp. 2010); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2010); Mlechick v. Mansfield, 503 F.3d 1340 (2007). II. Legal Criteria Service connection is warranted if it is shown that a Veteran has a disability resulting from an injury incurred or a disease contracted in active service or for aggravation of a pre-existing injury or disease in active military service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2010). That an injury or disease occurred in service is not enough; there must be chronic disability resulting from that injury or disease. If there is no showing of a resulting chronic condition during service, then a showing of continuity of symptomatology after service is required to support a finding of chronicity. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge when all of the evidence establishes that the disease was incurred in service. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in- service disease or injury and the present disability. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). III. Analysis The appellant contends that he is entitled to service connection for allergic rhinitis. For the reasons that follow, the Board concludes that service connection is warranted. A June 1985 ROTC examination report reflects that the appellant's sinuses were normal. No complaints of allergies were noted. In a March 1984 report of medical history, the appellant denied having a history of sinusitis or hay fever and stated that he has no known allergies. A February 1987 examination report reflects that the appellant's sinuses were normal. A February 2004 service treatment record reflects that the appellant reported sinus pain and was prescribed Flonase. In a March 2004 report of medical history, the appellant noted that he took Flonase for allergies. A March 2005 service treatment record reflects that the appellant was taking Flonase and reported recurrent sinus area pain. An August 2005 service treatment record reflects that the appellant was taking Flonase and Zyrtec. An October 2006 service treatment record indicates the appellant had a diagnosis of allergic rhinitis. He was prescribed Cetirizine (Zyrtec) and Flonase for allergies. November 2006 and December 2006 service treatment records indicate the appellant continued to take Zyrtec and Flonase for allergies. A January 2007 pre-separation VA examination report reflects that the appellant had a diagnosis of perennial allergic rhinitis. The appellant reported that he had been on Zyrtec on and off for four to five years. He stated that his allergies have gotten worse in the last seven to ten years and are now year round. He reported that he took 10 mg of Zyrtec daily, year round, and Flonase. He reported that the medications keep the allergies under control. He stated that he is more symptomatic during ragweed and pollen season. He reported that the main area affected is his nose with drainage, which is worse at night with drainage down the back of the throat with a chronic sore throat. He did not report eye symptoms. He stated that he had a cough that was worse in the morning, and was dry and non-productive. No wheezing or shortness of breath was noted. On physical examination, there was no mastoid or sinus tenderness. Tympanic membranes of the ears were intact with no redness, drainage, or excessive cerumen. The appellant's nose had pink nasal mucosa without exudate, sores, cracks or fissures. There were no erosions on the nasal septum midline. There was no obstruction of either nare and no nasal crusting or purulent discharge. A July 2009 VA treatment record reflects that the appellant had active diagnoses of allergic rhinitis, not elsewhere classified, and seasonal allergies. The record indicates the appellant takes Flonase and Loratadine every day for allergies. He reported that his allergies were kept at bay thus far due to Zyrtec. On physical examination, there was no redness, swelling, pain or drainage. The lungs had good excursion and expansion. In a March 2008 notice of disagreement, the appellant stated that he did not have allergies prior to entering the military, he was treated for allergies while on active duty, and still suffers from them. As a lay person, the appellant is competent to report symptoms capable of lay observation. Therefore the appellant is competent to state that he had symptoms of allergies, such as a cough or drainage. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Seasonal and other acute allergic manifestations subsiding on the absence of or removal of the allergen are generally to be regarded as acute diseases, healing without residuals. The determination as to service incurrence or aggravation must be on the whole evidentiary showing. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.380. The Board finds that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the appellant's allergic rhinitis is not acute. The January 2007 VA examination report and July 2009 VA treatment record indicate the appellant takes constant medication for allergic rhinitis. The diagnosis of perennial allergic rhinitis indicates that the appellant's allergic rhinitis is not seasonal, but year-round. The July 2009 VA treatment record reflects the appellant has a diagnosis of allergic rhinitis, as well as a diagnosis of seasonal allergies, indicating that the appellant has both seasonal and non-seasonal allergic rhinitis. Given the evidence outlined above, the Board finds that the appellant is entitled to service connection for his allergic rhinitis. The appellant has a current diagnosis of allergic rhinitis, he had a diagnosis of allergic rhinitis in service, and reports that he has had symptoms of allergic rhinitis since service. The appellant's contentions that he had allergic rhinitis in service and following service are supported by his service treatment records, January 2007 VA examination report and July 2009 VA treatment record. The evidence also demonstrates that the appellant's allergic rhinitis had its onset in service. Allergic rhinitis was not noted in his June 1985 examination report and the appellant stated that he did not have allergies prior to service. (See March 2008 notice of disagreement). Additionally, the appellant's medical records indicate that the appellant does not have acute allergic rhinitis, and that he has been on continuous treatment, including medication, for this condition. Based on the totality of the evidence, and resolving all reasonable doubt in the appellant's favor, the Board finds that service connection for allergic rhinitis is warranted. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. ORDER Entitlement to service connection for allergic rhinitis is granted. _________________________________________________ U.R. POWELL Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs