Citation Nr: 18141388 Decision Date: 10/10/18 Archive Date: 10/10/18 DOCKET NO. 17-18 948 DATE: October 10, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for allergic urticaria is denied. FINDING OF FACT The competent and credible evidence does not demonstrate that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of allergic urticaria. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for allergic urticaria are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from May 1961 to May 1967. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in San Diego, California. The Board remanded this case in February 2018 for further development. Pursuant to the Veterans Claims Assistance Act (VCAA), VA has duties to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159 (2017). Neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any issues with the duty to notify or duty to assist. 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). 1. Entitlement to service connection for allergic urticaria Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated during service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). That determination requires a finding of current disability that is related to an injury or disease in service. Watson v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 309 (1993); Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141 (1993). Service connection may be granted for a disability diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disability is due to disease or injury that was incurred or aggravated in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d) (2017). The first requirement for any service connection claim is evidence of a disability. Boyer v. West, 210 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992). This requirement is satisfied when a veteran has a disability at the time he or she files a claim for service connection or during the pendency of that claim. See McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007) (holding that the requirement of a current disability is satisfied when a claimant has a disability at any time during the pendency of the claim); Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013) (holding that when the record contains a recent diagnosis of disability prior to a Veteran filing a claim for benefits based on that disability, the report of diagnosis is relevant evidence that the Board must address in determining whether a current disability existed at the time the claim was filed or during its pendency). The Veteran contends that his allergic urticaria is due to his military service. Based on a careful review of the subjective and clinical evidence, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that service connection is warranted for allergic urticaria. VA treatment records from May 2016 to June 2018 list skin disorders that include allergic urticaria, as an active problem or part of the Veteran’s past medical history. However, upon a May 2018 VA examination, no skin disorder was diagnosed because there was no pathology to render a diagnosis. In fact, the Veteran denied symptoms of allergic urticaria or having allergic urticaria or any chronic skin disorder. The Board finds that such statements made by the Veteran as to the disability for which he is seeking service connection are significantly probative as to whether he does in fact have the actual disability. Further, the Board finds the examiner’s opinion to be probative evidence against a finding of an allergic urticaria disability. The VA examiner’s opinion is based on careful review of the Veteran’s medical records and an examination of the Veteran. It is also supported by well-reasoned rationale and further supported by the Veteran’s statements denying symptoms or diagnosis of allergic urticaria at the examination. As such the Board finds that the May 2018 VA examiner’s opinion and findings have more probative weight than the VA treatment records that merely list allergic urticaria as an active problem or part of the Veteran’s past medical history. In this regard, the VA treatment record listing “allergic urticaria” does not indicate when the diagnosis was made, or if this is a compilation of the Veteran’s entire medical history over many years. As such, the Board finds that the May 2018 VA examination findings and statements by the Veteran during that examination are the most probative as to whether the Veteran has allergic urticaria. In this case, the Board finds that allergic urticaria has not been clinically diagnosed during the appeal period or proximate thereto. See McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007); Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013). Accordingly, without competent evidence of record that the Veteran has allergic urticaria, the claim for service connection must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b) (2012); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). LESLEY A. REIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD E. Ko, Associate Counsel