Citation Nr: 20002913 Decision Date: 01/14/20 Archive Date: 01/13/20 DOCKET NO. 16-23 129 DATE: January 14, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a muscle and joint disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a headache disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer is denied. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus (DM) is denied. Entitlement to service connection for right carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is denied. Entitlement to service connection for left CTS is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a neck disability is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran does not have diagnoses of a muscle and joint disability or a headache disability at any time during the appeal period or proximate thereto. 2. The weight of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran’s right knee disability, left knee disability, prostate cancer, and DM manifested in service or are otherwise attributable to service, or manifested to a compensable degree within one year of separation from service. 3. The weight of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran’s right CTS, left CTS, and neck disability are related to his active service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a muscle and joint disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2019). 2. The criteria for service connection for a headache disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2019). 3. The criteria for service connection for a right knee disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2019). 4. The criteria for service connection for a left knee disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2019). 5. The criteria for service connection for prostate cancer have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2019). 6. The criteria for service connection for DM have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2019). 7. The criteria for service connection for right CTS have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2019). 8. The criteria for service connection for left CTS have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2019). 9. The criteria for service connection for a neck disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active military service from September 1969 to November 1970. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Muskogee, Oklahoma. Jurisdiction of this appeal is currently with the RO in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. In his May 2016 substantive appeal, the Veteran indicated he did not want a Board hearing. In an August 2019 letter, VA informed the Veteran that the hearing was scheduled for September 12, 2019. However, a review of the record reflects that the Veteran failed to appear for the hearing without explanation. He has not requested that the hearing be rescheduled. As such, the hearing request is considered withdrawn. Service Connection – Muscle and Joint Disability, and Headache Disability The Veteran has asserted that he has a muscle and joint disability, and headache disability that are related to his active service. However, the evidence of record does not show confirmed diagnoses of any muscle and joint disability or headache disability at any time during the pendency of the appeal, or proximate thereto. The evidence includes outpatient treatment records and VA examination reports. Pertinent VA outpatient records do not reflect current diagnoses of any muscle and joint disability or headache disability. Specifically, with regard to the Veteran’s claimed muscle and joint disability, at a May 2015 VA examination, the examiner found the Veteran did not have or had ever been diagnosed with a muscle injury. Further at that time, the Veteran stated that he did not have a muscle condition but that he had joint pains. The examiner noted the Veteran had a diagnosis of rectus diastasis in 1970, but that it was not considered a muscle injury. Thus, the examiner opined there was no diagnosis because there was no pathology to render a diagnosis. Moreover, a February 2016 VA treatment record indicates the Veteran had full range of motion of all joints without swelling or tenderness. With regard to the claimed headache disability, the Board notes that a March 2016 VA treatment record indicates the Veteran denied headaches. No other evidence of headache complaints or treatment are noted. While the Veteran is competent to report observable symptoms, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis of a muscle and joint disability or headache disability, as that requires medical expertise and testing that is outside the realm of common knowledge of a layperson. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Moreover, the record, including lay statements does not indicate headaches or joint pain affecting industrial capacity such as to trigger the need for further examination. For a disability to be service connected, it must be present at the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or during or contemporary to the pendency of the claim. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007); Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013). There is no evidence of record showing the Veteran to have a current diagnosis of any muscle and joint disability or headache disability. Congress has specifically limited entitlement to service-connected benefits to cases where there is a current disability. In the absence of proof of a present disability, there can be no valid claim. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992). Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim and entitlement to service connection for any muscle and joint disability or headache disability is not warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b) (2012); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Service Connection – Right Knee Disability, Left Knee Disability, Prostate Cancer, DM, Right CTS, Left CTS, and Neck Disability The Veteran has asserted that he has a right knee disability, left knee disability, prostate cancer, DM, right CTS, left CTS, and a neck disability that are related to his active service. In considering the evidence of record under the laws and regulations as set forth above, the Board concludes that service connection is not warranted for right knee disability, left knee disability, prostate cancer, DM, right CTS, left CTS, and neck disability. The Veteran’s STRs are absent any complaints, symptoms, treatment, or diagnoses related to right knee disability, left knee disability, prostate cancer, DM, right CTS, left CTS, and neck disability, or any such related disability during active service. Post-service evidence of record indicates that the Veteran had a past surgical history that included bilateral total knee replacement, prostatectomy, bilateral CTS surgery, and cervical disk hernia surgery; and that the Veteran had diagnoses of bilateral knee osteoarthritis and DM. Opinions as to the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s disabilities were not provided. The Board acknowledges that a VA medical examination or medical opinion has not been obtained in response to the claims of entitlement to service connection for right knee disability, left knee disability, prostate cancer, DM, right CTS, left CTS, and neck disability. VA is obliged to provide a VA examination or obtain a medical opinion when: (1) there is competent evidence that the Veteran has a current disability (or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability), (2) there is evidence establishing that the Veteran suffered an event, injury or disease in service or has a disease or symptoms of a disease within a specified presumptive period, (3) the evidence indicates that the current disability or symptoms may be associated with service or with another service-connected disability, and (4) there is not sufficient medical evidence to make a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(4) (2016); Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002). In this case, there is no competent evidence of record indicating that the Veteran’s right knee disability, left knee disability, prostate cancer, DM, right CTS, left CTS, and neck disability are related to active service. Therefore, the Board finds that no VA examination or medical opinion is warranted. Specifically, the Board notes that the Veteran has not asserted with any specificity how his right knee disability, left knee disability, prostate cancer, DM, right CTS, left CTS, and neck disability are as a result of his active service; nor has he asserted symptoms of such disability began during active service. While laypersons are competent to report the presence of observable symptoms, the Veteran was not competent to provide an opinion regarding the etiology of right knee disability, left knee disability, prostate cancer, DM, right CTS, left CTS, and neck disability. Medical opinions of that nature require medical testing and expertise that is outside the common knowledge of a layperson. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Therefore, the Veteran is not competent to provide an opinion iof etiology n this case. Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claims and entitlement to service connection for right knee disability, left knee disability, prostate cancer, DM, right CTS, left CTS, and neck disability is not warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b) (2012); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). ERIC S. LEBOFF Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Mariah N. Sim, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.