Citation Nr: 1320571 Decision Date: 06/26/13 Archive Date: 07/05/13 DOCKET NO. 12-21 463 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Houston, Texas THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for residuals of cold injury/frostbite, bilateral feet, with lower extremity pain. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Texas Veterans Commission WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Adamson, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from April 1956 to April 1960. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Houston, Texas. The issue of entitlement to service connection for disabilities of the left leg, back, right and left hands, as well as bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, were raised by the Veteran in a March 2013 statement. These issues have not been developed for appellate review and are therefore referred to the RO for appropriate disposition. This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2012). FINDINGS OF FACT The Veteran has bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy and peripheral vascular disease due to cold injury/frostbite during active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW Residuals of cold injury/frostbite, bilateral feet, was incurred in active military service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5103A, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2012). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Without deciding whether notice and development requirements have been satisfied in the present case, the Board is not precluded from adjudicating the issues on appeal herein. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126 (West 2002 & Supp. 2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a) (2012). This is so because the Board is taking action favorable to the Veteran by granting the issues at hand. As such, this decision poses no risk of prejudice to the Veteran. See, e.g., Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384 (1993); see also Pelegrini v. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 412 (2004); VAOPGCPREC 16-92, 57 Fed. Reg. 49,747 (1992). Although the Board has an obligation to provide reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no need to discuss, in detail, all of the evidence submitted by the Veteran or on his behalf. See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (finding that the Board must review the entire record, but does not have to discuss each piece of evidence). The analysis herein focuses on the most salient and relevant evidence and on what this evidence shows, or fails to show, on the claim. See Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122 (2000) (holding that the law requires only that the Board address its reasons for rejecting evidence favorable to the Veteran). Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). In addition, service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). The Board recognizes that the basis for the RO's denial of the Veteran's claim was the lack of evidence of in-service cold injury. A determination has been made that the Veteran's service treatment records are "fire-related," indicating that his service records were destroyed in a 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) in St. Louis, Missouri. In cases where records once in the hands of the government are lost, the Board has a heightened obligation to explain its findings and conclusions and to consider carefully the benefit-of-the-doubt rule where applicable. See O'Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365, 367 (1991). The analysis below has been undertaken with this heightened duty in mind. The case law does not, however, lower the legal standard for proving a claim for service connection, but rather increases the Board's obligation to evaluate and discuss in its decision all of the evidence that may be favorable to the claimant. See Russo v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 46 (1996). The Veteran contends that he has a current bilateral lower extremity disorder that is related to active service. During his hearing, he testified that he was stationed in Korea at Osan from 1956 to 1957. He reported that he was stationed there through an entire winter season, during which he experienced three to four months of extreme cold. During this period of his service, the Veteran reported that he would have to work outside for six to eight hours per day on communication lines. He reported wearing leather boots, which were not specially made for cold and wet terrain. The Veteran recalled having pain in his feet during this time and seeking treatment at the dispensary. He recalled being given aspirin and told to take it at night, and being instructed to attempt to keep his feet dry. The Veteran also confirmed that following service he lived in Texas his entire life and was not again exposed to extreme cold. The Veteran also submitted photocopies of several photographs of him in Korea in service. The Board finds no reason to question the factual accuracy of the Veteran's recollections, or to question either his credibility or his competence to state such recollections. While the current medical evidence in the claims file is minimal, there is evidence showing that the type of disability the Veteran currently has in his lower extremities is the type often caused due to cold injury. In November 2008, a private physician indicated that the Veteran had pain in the lower extremities with a notation that the Veteran also had "a history of exposure to cold weather in the war and this can present symptoms of previous damage." The diagnoses were noted to be "bilateral leg pain" and "exposure to cold weather due [to] war - possible damage to his extremities." In April 2010, the Veteran was referred for a nerve conduction study (NCS) due to "frost bite in Korea" with current numbness in the stocking distribution of both lower legs and feet. The provisional diagnosis was peripheral neuropathy. The May 2010 NCS report shows abnormal results with a notation that "[t]hese study findings demonstrate evidence for a moderate sensorimotor primarily axonal polyneuropathy. Of note, cold injury has been known to be associated with peripheral neuropathy." In April 2011, a private cardiovascular surgeon diagnosed the Veteran as having, based upon an arterial duplex study of the lower extremities, mild peripheral vascular disease. The cause was not discussed in the report. After a thorough review of the evidence of record, the Board concludes that service connection for residuals of cold injury/frostbite, bilateral feet, is warranted. There is evidence of a current diagnosis of both peripheral neuropathy and peripheral vascular disease. See Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding that the existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation). In addition, although the Veteran's service treatment records are not available to confirm the reported in-service treatment related to the Veteran's feet, the Board finds that the Veteran's report of his in-service symptoms, as well as his report of the type of weather he experienced, the type of boots he wore, and the pain he experienced are competent and credible. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 307 (2007); Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374-75 (2002). Furthermore, both the Veteran's private physicians and his VA physician have confirmed that the type of disability he has is the type experienced by those with cold injury residuals. There is no evidence of record with a contrary finding. Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidence of record is at least in equipoise with regard to this claim. Therefore, with application of the benefit of the doubt doctrine, service connection for residuals of cold injury/frostbite, bilateral feet, is warranted. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53-56 (1990). ORDER Service connection for residuals of cold injury/frostbite, bilateral feet, with lower extremity pain is granted. ____________________________________________ JOY A. MCDONALD Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs