Citation Nr: 20021447 Decision Date: 03/25/20 Archive Date: 03/25/20 DOCKET NO. 17-40 283 DATE: March 25, 2020 ORDER Service connection for stasis dermatitis is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s stasis dermatitis had its onset in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for stasis dermatitis have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty with the United States Air Force from January 1964 to January 1968, including service in Vietnam from January 1967 to January 1968. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran presented sworn testimony at a hearing before the undersigned in March 2020. Service connection for stasis dermatitis Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability). See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Determinations as to service connection will be based on review of the entire evidence of record, to include all pertinent medical and lay evidence, with due consideration to VA’s policy to administer the law under a broad and liberal interpretation consistent with the facts in each individual case. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). In making all determinations, the Board must fully consider the lay assertions of record. A layperson is competent to report on the onset and continuity of his current symptomatology. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) (a Veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge). Lay evidence can also be competent and sufficient evidence of a diagnosis or to establish etiology if (1) the layperson is competent to identify the medical condition; (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis; or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When considering whether lay evidence is competent, the Board must determine, on a case by case basis, whether the Veteran’s particular disability is the type of disability for which lay evidence may be competent. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); see also Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1376-77. The Veteran seeks service connection for his diagnosed stasis dermatitis, impacting his feet and ankles. The Veteran contends that he noticed his ankles began to swell to three times normal size by lunchtime in 1967, and it has been recurrent throughout the years. See July 2017 Form 9. The Veteran stated he was told it was the first signs of diabetes and has since been properly diagnosed with stasis dermatitis; he also asserted that due to his symptomatology, he should have been treated for this condition while he was overseas in service. Id. The Veteran underwent a VA examination for his skin disability in February 2015. The examination report states a diagnosis of stasis dermatitis with a date of onset in 1973. The Veteran indicated in the examination that he developed the condition in both lower extremities in the early 1970s, and symptoms are worse towards the end of the day and improve with elevation. The symptoms included small, red patchy lesions. The examiner found that the Veteran’s stasis dermatitis was less likely as not proximately due to the Veteran’s service-connected diabetes mellitus type II and less likely as not aggravated beyond its natural progression by the diabetes mellitus type II. See February 2015 C&P Examination. The examiner opined that because the evidence showed the Veteran was diagnosed with the diabetes in 2014, and he’s had a history of dermatitis for over twenty years, there is no sufficient evidence to suggest the skin condition was caused or aggravated by the diabetes. There was also no complaints, treatment, or diagnosis for the skin condition in the service treatment records. Id. Despite this negative nexus opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has recognized that skin disabilities by their nature can be chronic and recurrent, with active and inactive periods. See Ardison v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 405 (1994). At his March 2020 Board Hearing, the Veteran testified that his skin problems started in late 1967 while he was serving in Vietnam; his feet and ankles swelled up and he was told to stay off his feet after seeking treatment. He states that the edema and swelling in service was the initial manifestation of his diabetes. The Veteran testified that he has soaked his feet in Epsom salt, tried both warm and cold foot baths, used OTC creams but the condition has persisted throughout the years. The stasis dermatitis has resulted in cracked skin that “feels like fish scales,” as well as redness. He added that when he scratches the skin, it begins to bleed, and he resorts to disinfecting the areas and applying lotion. The Veteran said has bothered that his stasis dermatitis has bothered him ever since he was in service, and the symptomatology has continued and been recurrent since that time. See March 2020 Hearing Transcript. The Board finds that the Veteran has provided competent and credible testimony that he experienced the onset of his stasis dermatitis while in service, and that his condition, which has impacted both lower extremities including the feet and ankles, has been episodic and recurrent throughout the years since his time in service. His medical treatment records indicate diagnoses and treatment for stasis dermatitis, and he has indeed dealt with this recurring skin disability for a significant period of time. The Board is also cognizant of the intermittent nature of some skin disorders. See Ardison v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 405 (1994). As reasonable doubt is resolved in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds that service connection for Veteran’s stasis dermatitis is warranted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Zarar Ahmed, Attorney Advisor 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.