Citation Nr: 18153784 Decision Date: 11/29/18 Archive Date: 11/28/18 DOCKET NO. 17-01 334 DATE: November 29, 2018 ORDER Service connection for a left ankle disability is denied. Service connection for a right ankle disability is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for a stress fracture of the left tibia is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran does not have a left ankle disability. 2. The Veteran does not have a right ankle disability. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a left ankle disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304, (2018). 2. The criteria for service connection for a right ankle disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304, (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from August 1981 to August 1984. In July 2016, the Board remanded the case for further development by the originating agency. The case has been returned to the Board for further appellate action. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability 2. Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability Legal Criteria Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of three things: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship, i.e., a nexus, between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d, 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Except as otherwise provided by law, a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits under laws administered by the Secretary. The Secretary shall consider all information and lay and medical evidence of record in a case before the Secretary with respect to benefits under laws administered by the Secretary. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of the matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2018); see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). To deny a claim on its merits, the evidence must preponderate against the claim. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518, 519 (1996), citing Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. At 54. Analysis Service treatment records are negative for any evidence of a left or right ankle disability during active duty or at discharge. The post-service medical evidence of record fails to show that the Veteran has a currently diagnosed left or right ankle disability. In this regard, on VA examination in October 2015, range of motion for both ankles was normal, with no pain noted on examination; muscle strength testing was normal; there was joint instability; and the Veteran did not report flare-ups of ankle pain. VA and private treatment records show complaints of chronic pain in the ankles, but no diagnosis of a right or left ankle disability has been made. There is no other evidence of record, VA or private, of a diagnosed left or right ankle disability during the current appeal period. Whether service connection is claimed on direct, presumptive, or any other basis, a necessary element for establishing such a claim is the existence of a current disability. See Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328 (1997) (holding that section 1110 of the statute requires the existence of a present disability for VA compensation purposes); see also Gilpin v. West, 155 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992); Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141, 144 (1992). The presence of a disability at the time of filing of a claim or during its pendency warrants a finding that the current disability requirement has been met, even if the disability resolves prior to the Board's adjudication of the claim. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). In this case, while the Veteran has reported suffering from pain in the ankles, there is no confirmation in the medical evidence that the Veteran has had a current diagnosis of a chronic left or right ankle disability since the filing of his claim in June 2015. VA does not generally grant service connection for symptoms alone, without an identified basis for those symptoms. VA needs to identify a disability, not symptoms of a disability. Accordingly, service connection cannot be granted for symptoms of a disability, such as pain. In light of the absence of any competent evidence of a left or right ankle disability during the pendency of this appeal, these claims must be denied. In reaching this decision, the Board has considered the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine; however, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, that doctrine is not applicable. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. REASONS FOR REMAND Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for a stress fracture of the left tibia is remanded. The last VA examination for the Veteran's stress fracture of the left tibia was provided in June 2017. In a February 2018 statement, the Veteran’s attorney requested another VA examination of the left leg disability, based on the results of a January 2018 MRI of the left knee, which showed a tear in the medial meniscus and a partial tear in one of the tendons. Furthermore, the Veteran underwent surgery on the left knee in April 2018 and in a June 2018 statement, he noted that it was hard to stand and walk due to pain in the legs. Given the evidence of possible increased symptomatology, a new VA examination is warranted to determine the current severity of the service-connected stress fracture of the left tibia. Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997); Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377 (1994); VAOPGCPREC 11-95 (1995). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Updated treatment records should be obtained and added to the claims file/e-folder. Following completion of the above, schedule the Veteran for an appropriate examination to determine the current severity of his service-connected stress fracture of the left tibia. The examiner should review the claims folder and note such review in the examination report or an addendum. Any testing deemed necessary should be performed, including X-rays and appropriate range of motion studies. All clinical findings should be recorded in detail, to include range of motion testing for active motion, passive motion, weight-bearing, and nonweight-bearing to the extent possible. If the examiner is unable to conduct the required testing, he or she should clearly explain why that is so. In reporting the results of range of motion testing, the examiner should specifically identify the points, if any, at which pain begins. The examiner should determine whether the left leg disability is manifested by weakened movement, excess fatigability, incoordination, pain or flare-ups. These determinations should be expressed in terms of the degree of additional range-of-motion loss due to any weakened movement, excess fatigability, incoordination, pain or flare ups. The examiner should also indicate whether, and to what extent, the Veteran likely experiences functional loss due to pain and/or any other symptoms noted above during flare-ups and/or with repeated use; to the extent possible, the examiner should express any additional functional loss in terms of additional degrees of limited motion. The examiner is asked to provide a thorough explanation of the rationale underlying any and all opinions or conclusions expressed. 2. Thereafter, and after undertaking any additional development deemed necessary, readjudicate the claim. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, in whole or in part, the Veteran and his representative must be provided with a supplemental statement of the case and be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate review, if otherwise in order. KELLI A. KORDICH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD F. Yankey, Counsel