Citation Nr: 18156973 Decision Date: 12/11/18 Archive Date: 12/11/18 DOCKET NO. 17-31 229 DATE: December 11, 2018 ORDER Service connection for emphysema is granted. Service connection for cold weather injuries to bilateral feet is denied. FINDING OF FACT 1. Probative medical evidence indicates that the Veteran’s emphysema is related to service. 2. The most probative evidence is against a finding that the Veteran’s current foot disability is related to his military service, to include cold weather exposure. CONCLUSION OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for emphysema (claimed as “chest condition with severe coughing”) have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2018). 2. The criteria for service connection for cold weather injuries to bilateral feet have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the Army from December 1952 to October 1954. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2014 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran was scheduled for a Board video conference hearing in September 2018; however, he did not report for the hearing nor provide good cause for failing to report. Thus, the request is deemed withdrawn. This appeal has been advanced on the Board’s docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c); 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2). Service Connection As an initial matter, the Board notes that service connection for a chest condition with severe coughing and for cold weather injuries to bilateral feet was initially denied in the April 2013 rating decision. Service connection for these claimed conditions was denied because the evidence did not show a current disability. However, the private medical evidence the Veteran submitted in April 2013 was not considered in the April 2013 rating decision. Such evidence reflected current disabilities of the chest and feet. Accordingly, the claims will be reconsidered on the merits. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b). Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Generally, in order to prove service connection, there must be competent, credible evidence of a current disability, in-service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, and a nexus, or link, between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. See, e.g., Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Pond v. West, 12 Vet. App. 341 (1999). 1. Service Connection for Chest Condition with Severe Coughing The Veteran contends that his current chest condition with severe coughing is because of exposure to either mustard gas or other gases while building roads to the front line during his service in Korea. See February 2009 Statement in Support of Claim; January 2009 Statement in Support of Claim. October 2010 VA medical records show the Veteran has a current diagnosis of emphysema. The Board concludes that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of emphysema that has been linked to his military service by competent medical evidence. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). The October 2010 VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s emphysema is at least as likely as not related to service. The examiner noted the Veteran had exposures as an engineer in service, and the separation examination states he was evaluated for ‘chest condition’ but only measured inhalation and exhalation. The examiner noted this indicates evidence that there was a respiratory issue prior to discharge from service, but it would have been difficult at the time to diagnose emphysema, as that takes decades to develop. For the above reasons and resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds that service connection for emphysema is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. 2. Service Connection for Cold Weather Injuries to Bilateral Feet The Veteran contends that he has a current bilateral foot condition that is related to cold weather exposure during his service in Korea. See May 2012 Statement in Support of Claim. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has a current diagnosis of gout and was likely exposed to cold weather in service, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that his diagnosed gout began during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d). Private treatment records show the Veteran was diagnosed with gout in June 2011, decades after his separation from service. Further, the October 2017 VA feet examiner opined that the Veteran’s gout is not at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including in-service cold exposure. The examiner explained that gout was not something that he was diagnosed with in the military and cannot be connected to exposures in the military as it is largely a disorder of metabolism. There is no medical opinion to the contrary. While the Veteran believes that his current foot disability is related to service, as a lay person, he has not shown that he has specialized training sufficient to render such an opinion. In this regard, the diagnosis and etiology of foot disorders, and whether such are residuals of cold exposure, are matters that require medical training and expertise to determine. Accordingly, the Veteran’s opinion as to the diagnosis or etiology of his current foot disorder is not competent medical evidence. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (noting general competence to testify as to symptoms but not to provide medical diagnosis). The Board finds the opinion of the VA examiner to be significantly more probative than the Veteran’s lay assertions. In sum, the preponderance of the competent and probative evidence is against the claim, and service connection for the claimed residuals of cold injuries to the feet, to include gout, is denied. In reaching the above conclusions, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. However, as the preponderance of the probative evidence is against the claim, that doctrine is not applicable in the instant appeal. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 55-56. K. A. BANFIELD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD G. N. Wilson, Law Clerk