Citation Nr: 18117503 Decision Date: 07/10/18 Archive Date: 07/10/18 DOCKET NO. 15-06 361A DATE: July 10, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for hepatitis C is granted. FINDING OF FACT The probative and competent evidence of record is in equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s hepatitis C was incurred during service. CONCLUSION OF LAW Affording the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, the criteria for service connection for hepatitis C have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from August 1967 to August 1970. Entitlement to service connection for hepatitis C The Veteran contends that his hepatitis C was incurred during his active military service. The Board concludes that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of hepatitis C that is related to his service; specifically, his duties as a medic. 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). Private treatment records confirm that the Veteran was diagnosed with hepatitis C in December 2009 after he sought treatment for right upper quadrant abdominal pain. The Veteran was also diagnosed with cirrhosis of the liver. The Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) contain his entrance and exit examinations, which are silent for any complaints or defects, except juvenile tonsillitis and preexisting eye defects as noted during his entrance and exit examinations. The remainder of the Veteran’s STRs only document occasional occurrences when the Veteran sought medical treatment for viral upper respiratory infections (URI), colds, and minor hand and knee injuries. The Veteran’s DD 214 confirms that his military occupational specialty was medical specialist. In a February 2004 statement, he noted that he worked as a medic in the hospitals and on the ambulances and “was in contact on several occasions with bodily fluids and I was bitten several times.” In January 2015, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination. After reviewing the records, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s hepatitis C was less likely than not (less than 50% probability) incurred in or caused by his service. The examiner’s rationale was there was no evidence of the Veteran being bitten or other exposure presenting a significant risk for hepatitis C in his STRs. The examiner also explained that the Veteran’s service was from August 1967 to August 1970, but he was not diagnosed until several decades later. Furthermore, the examiner stated that the Veteran’s private treatment records reported that the Veteran had a history of recreational drug use. Therefore, it was less likely than not that the Veteran contracted hepatitis C during military service and that his source of Hepatitis C came from risk factors after separation from the service. The Veteran testified at a Board hearing in May 2018. During the hearing, he testified that as a medic, he was often exposed to bodily fluids, including blood. The Veteran even stated he had been bitten by one of his patients. The Veteran also testified that back in the 1960’s it was not common practice to wear gloves or other protective gear, so an exposure would not have been an incident he would have reported. The Veteran also testified that he absolutely did not use recreational drugs, despite what his private medical records say. The Veteran also testified that he has no other risk factors to include tattoos. After service, the Veteran left the medical field to work in a tool and die shop and a chemical factory. In favor of finding a nexus is the Veteran’s competent and credible statements that he was regularly exposed to human bodily fluids before the risk of such exposures were known and therefore no records of a specific incident would be in his file. The Veteran further reported that after leaving service he left the medical field and worked in a tool and die shop and chemical factory, thus, isolating his exposure to human bodily fluids to his military service. The Veteran also specifically denied recreational drug use, and any other personal risk factors to include tattoos. The Board accepts these statements as competent evidence establishing the incurrences of in-service exposures. Against the Veteran’s claim is the January 2015 VA examination, in which the examiner did not find a nexus between the Veteran’s hepatitis C and his service, in part because there were no documented in-service exposures and there was a history of drug use. The Board finds no reason to afford greater probative weight to the examiner’s negative nexus opinion than to the Veteran’s competent and credible statements. The Board has also reviewed the same private treatment records which have but a single entry stating, “He has indicated exposure to the following products: recreational drug use.” The Board finds the Veteran’s testimony that he never used recreational drugs more probative than a single entry in his medical treatment records. Thus, eliminating the “after separation source of risk factors for hepatitis c” that the January 2015 examiner relied upon for his negative opinion. Accepting the Veteran’s assertions of in-service exposure and denial of recreational drug use, the Board finds the evidence is at least in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s hepatitis C is etiologically related to his active service. The benefit of the doubt is resolved in the Veteran’s favor; service connection for hepatitis C must be granted. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990); 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. M.E. Larkin Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Perkins, Michael