Citation Nr: 18161037 Decision Date: 12/28/18 Archive Date: 12/28/18 DOCKET NO. 16 60-576 DATE: December 28, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a left foot condition is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has a left foot condition due to a disease or injury in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a left foot condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1116, 1137, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The appellant is a Veteran who served on active duty from November 2004 to October 2007. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2016, rating decision of the Des Moines, Iowa, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board notes the Veteran has filed a claim for service connection for a right foot condition, and has perfected her appeal. This issue is not before the Board at this time because she requested a Board hearing. Entitlement to service connection for a left foot condition The Veteran contends that she suffers from a left foot condition that began during service. 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 the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran’s left foot condition is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d). Service treatment records document a visit in March 2006 for bilateral foot pain, with the assessment of bilateral plantar fasciitis. She was given arch supports and was instructed to not run or jump for two weeks. VA treatment records show complaints of bilateral foot and heel pain in August 2016. In a December 2016 statement, the Veteran asserted that while serving in Iraq she incurred an injury, however she did not elaborate on what the injury was. She reported seeking treatment for her right foot, and then stated she was later diagnosed with bilateral plantar fasciitis. The Veteran underwent a VA examination in February 2016. The examiner noted that the STRs document plantar fasciitis in March 2006. She had a profile for no running, and to wear tennis shoes rather than combat boots for certain aspects of her job. Following discharge, she worked for Ryder Trucks and wore steel toed boots at work. There were notes in VAMC records from 2011 indicating she complained of pain in her feet secondary to steel toed boots. She reported her right foot hurt. She then stated the pain was primarily in the heel, worse with stepping on heel without shoes. She was not using inserts. She did not have any pain on examination of her left foot. The examiner concluded it is less likely than not that a left foot condition is related to the plantar fasciitis reported in service. The rationale provided was her symptoms were reported as mild, mild enough to be classified as subclinical. The examiner noted despite the profile in service, there is no evidence of prolonged serious problems, particularly as the evidence indicates the right foot pain arose in a new environment, and the relationship between any current foot problems and her service a decade ago would be difficult to establish. To conclude her foot pain is not related to the plantar fasciitis reported in 2006. In January 2017, the Veteran underwent an examination, and was diagnosed with left foot plantar fasciitis. The examiner noted that the foot condition started in 2016. Although the Veteran believes her left foot condition is proximately due to service, she is not competent to provide a nexus opinion in this case. The issue is medically complex, as it requires knowledge of the interaction between multiple organ systems in the body/interpretation of complicated diagnostic medical testing. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). She is not competent to relate her current left knee complaints to the in-service singular occurrence of plantar fascitis, over 10 years since discharge. Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the VA examiner. Accordingly, the February 2016 examination and opinion, establishes that the Veteran’s left foot condition, is not at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The rationale was the service treatment records do not show treatment for any chronic foot condition, or for many years following service. The examiners’ opinion is the most probative evidence as to the nexus to service, as it is based on an accurate medical history and provides an explanation that contains clear conclusions and supporting data. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). Additionally, it has been noted in treatment records and by VA examiners that her left foot condition did not develop until over ten years post discharge. In other words, the most probative evidence of record does not show that the Veteran’s claimed left foot condition is directly due to service. H.M. WALKER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD E. Skiouris, Associate Counsel