Citation Nr: 18144289 Decision Date: 10/24/18 Archive Date: 10/24/18 DOCKET NO. 13-11 274 DATE: October 24, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT A current left ankle disability was not incurred in or caused by the Veteran’s service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a left ankle disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110: 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from April 1996 to April 2000. He testified before the undersigned in January 2014. A transcript of that hearing is of record. 1. LEFT ANKLE INJURY In February 2015, the Board determined that there was conflicting evidence as to whether the Veteran had a present disability of the left ankle and, if so, whether it was related to his active service. The matter was thereby Remanded to obtain additional medical records and to afford the Veteran a new VA examination. Despite the RO’s requests, the Veteran did not attend his scheduled VA examination or provide authorization to obtain medical records. He has not provided a reason for these omissions. Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.655, when a claimant fails to report for an examination scheduled in conjunction with an original compensation claim, the claim shall be rated based on the evidence of record. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. Generally, the evidence must show: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Regulations also provide that 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 which was incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). The Veteran asserts that he has a current left ankle disability which was incurred in service. Regarding the first element of Shedden, the Board’s Remand discussed the conflicting evidence of record as to current diagnosis. There are medical records for and against a diagnosed ankle condition existing during the appeal period. A September 2010 X-ray of the left ankle, which was filed due to complaints of pain, revealed a calcaneus spur at the Achilles tendon and a bony prominence of the distal tibia. However, when he was examined by VA in January 2013, the Veteran’s left ankle was found to be normal. A March 2013 private chiropractors note was ambiguous as to presence of a diagnosed disability of the left ankle, which was due in part by the illegibility of the chiropractor’s records. The question of whether the Veteran has or has had a left ankle disability during the appeal period remains unresolved. As to the second element of Shedden, the Board concedes in-service diagnosis. A March 2000 Report of Medical Assessment denotes an in-service diagnosis of “left ankle sprain, chronic.” That said, even considering the evidence of a potential diagnosis, there is no medical evidence of a nexus between these conditions and the Veteran’s active service. The matter was Remanded, in part, for the purpose of examining the Veteran and securing a medical nexus opinion. The Veteran did not report for that examination. The appeal shall be considered based on the evidence of record. In that regard, there is no competent medical evidence establishing a link between the Veteran’s active service and any current left ankle disability, which is not necessarily conceded. Consideration has been given to the Veteran’s personal assertions that his ankle conditions are related to service. However, this is not a case like Kahana v. Shinseki where lay persons are competent to provide opinions on some medical issues. 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011). Rather the specific issue in this case, the diagnosis and etiology of an ankle disorder, falls outside of the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the claim of entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability must be denied. The Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. However, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim, that doctrine is not applicable. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2018). MICHAEL A. HERMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. L. Burroughs, Associate Counsel