Citation Nr: 18129367 Decision Date: 08/24/18 Archive Date: 08/24/18 DOCKET NO. 15-44 588 DATE: August 24, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for hepatitis C is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s hepatitis C is not etiologically related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for hepatitis C have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION Entitlement to service connection for hepatitis C. 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; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a) (2017). To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a Veteran 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, the so-called “nexus” requirement. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 38 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Service connection may also be granted for any disease initially diagnosed after service when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). Whenever there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the Veteran. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). Here, the Veteran seeks service connection for hepatitis C contending that he obtained the condition while in service. After reviewing the evidence of record, the Board finds that service connection is not warranted. Service treatment records are silent as to any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis, for hepatitis C. Post-service records show that the Veteran tested positive for hepatitis C during a private physician visit in February 2010. In a subsequent March 2010 visit, the Veteran denied the sharing of needles or ever getting stuck with a needle while working at a nursing home, but he acknowledged that he was splashed in an operating room years ago, and that he has sex with women other than his wife. In a February 2015 written correspondence, the Veteran reported being diagnosed with hepatitis C shortly after service in 1980; however, there is no evidence of record to substantiate this contention. Further, the Veteran submitted private medical records which in essence are contradictory to the Veteran’s reported onset of his condition. For example, the Veteran submitted treatment records from his private infectious disease doctor from an October 2015 office visit, that showed the Veteran’s symptoms began five years ago and generally lasts for five years. Alternatively, during a December 2015 visit, the examiner noted that the Veteran’s symptoms began 30 years ago and generally lasts 30 years. Similarly, in a May 2016 office visit, the examiner noted the symptoms began 15 years ago and generally lasts 15 years. Other discrepancies include notations in the October and December 2015 records showing that the symptoms are mild; yet, a second notation states the symptoms are chronic and uncontrolled. Further, the October 2015 medical record states the Veteran is active duty; however, the Veteran was discharged from active duty in 1979. Given the above discrepancies, the Board does not find the evidence probative for adjudicating the Veteran’s claim. The only medical record from the private physician that is consistent with other evidence is the October 2015 office visit which shows the Veteran’s symptoms began five years ago. This is consistent with other private treatment records which show that the Veteran first obtained a positive hepatitis C test result in February 2010. (Continued on the next page)   The remaining evidence of record shows that the Veteran received treatment for his hepatitis C through the VA choice program and ultimately was cured of the disease. However, there is no evidence of record linking the Veteran’s hepatitis to his military service. In light of the above, the Board concludes that an examination and opinion is not needed because the only evidence indicating such a disability is related to service are general, conclusory lay statements, and these statements are not sufficient to trigger VA’s obligation to obtain an opinion. See McClendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(4). As such, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim. As such, the benefit of the doubt doctrine does not apply, and the claim for service connection for hepatitis C is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 4.3; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). GAYLE E. STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Laffitte, Associate Counsel