Citation Nr: 20009945 Decision Date: 02/07/20 Archive Date: 02/05/20 DOCKET NO. 17-30 678 DATE: February 7, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral pes planus is denied. REFERRED The issue of entitlement to service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis and metatarsalgia was raised in a May 2016 statement authored by the Veteran’s podiatrist and is referred to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for adjudication. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran has not had right or left pes planus at any time during the pendency of the appeal. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral pes planus are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from March 1985 to March 1989. In December 2019, the Veteran testified in a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A copy of the hearing transcript is of record and has been reviewed. Service Connection for Bilateral Pes Planus Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may also be granted for any injury or disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease or injury was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of three things: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship, i.e., a nexus, between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence that it finds persuasive or unpersuasive and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 433 (2011). A Veteran bears the evidentiary burden to establish all elements of a service connection claim, including the nexus requirement. Fagan v. Shinseki, 573 F.3d 1282, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In making its ultimate determination, the Board must give a veteran the benefit of the doubt on any issue material to the claim when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence. Id. at 1287 (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b)). The Veteran asserts that he has a current disability of bilateral pes planus. However, a careful review of the medical evidence of record fails to show a currently diagnosed right or left pes planus. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has held that “Congress specifically limits entitlement for service-connected disease or injury to cases where such incidents have resulted in a disability. In the absence of proof of a present disability there can be no valid claim.” Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). Because it has not been shown that the Veteran has had right or left pes planus at any time during the appeal period, the criteria for service connection for bilateral pes planus are not met. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). Of record are VA and private treatment records as well as the Veteran’s service treatment records. The service treatment records and available VA treatment records are silent to any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of right or left pes planus. The private treatment record, which as relevant here only include a letter from the Veteran’s podiatrist, specifically note that he had a diagnosis of bilateral plantar fasciitis and metatarsalgia but fail to mention pes planus. Although during the hearing the Veteran indicated that military service resulted in plantar fasciitis and pes planus, under the facts of this case, he is a lay person and does not show to possess the necessary medical expertise to render a diagnosis of pes planus. (Continued on the next page)   As noted above, even the medical evidence the Veteran submitted in support of his claim fail to show a diagnosis of pes planus. These tend to show that the Veteran does receive medical care for his feet. It is reasonable to conclude that if he had a diagnosis of pes planus, the records would reflect such. As such, there is insufficient evidence of record to trigger VA’s duty to assist in this case with regard to affording the Veteran an examination for the claimed bilateral pes planus. Based on the foregoing, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit of the doubt rule is not applicable, and the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. JAMES G. REINHART Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Yaffe, 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.