Citation Nr: 21001491 Decision Date: 01/08/21 Archive Date: 01/08/21 DOCKET NO. 09-49 938 DATE: January 8, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT A foot disability did not have its onset during service and is not otherwise etiologically related to such service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a bilateral foot disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from November 1981 to November 1985, from November 1985 to October 1990, and from February 2003 to June 2003. She also had periods of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) and inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA). This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2008 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This case was previously before the Board in July 2013, April 2016, and February 2018, at which time the issue currently before the Board was remanded for additional development. The case has now been returned to the Board for appellate review. Service Connection — Bilateral Foot Disability In the February 2018 remand, the Board instructed VA to send the Veteran’s claim file to an appropriate examiner to provide an opinion on the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s bilateral foot disability. In November 2019, a VA examiner reviewed the Veteran’s claim file and opined that the Veteran’s bilateral foot disability was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. As rationale, the examiner noted that the record contained a clinical note from 1989 of a non-traumatic left foot pain complaint with no recurrence, clinical notes in April 2003 and May 2003 of left foot complaints with no recurrences, and a clinical note in 2005 of heel pain due to heel spurs, which suggests current feet conditions are not due to isolated self-resolving active service events of foot complaint. The examiner found that the Veteran had some isolated and sporadic self-limited foot complaints during service with no clear demonstration of a chronic feet issue until 2005, when she complained of heel pain. Additionally, the examiner stated that the Veteran’s heel pain is located just above the calcaneus bone at the Achilles tendon insertion site, while plantar fascia insertion site is below the calcaneus and is unrelated to the heel complaint. The Board finds that the November 2019 VA medical opinion is adequate because the examiner thoroughly reviewed the claims file and discussed the relevant evidence, considered the contentions of the Veteran, and provided a thorough supporting rationale for the conclusions reached. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120 (2007); Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). Further, there is no medical opinion of record to the contrary. As such, the VA medical opinion of record is the most probative evidence of record. While laypersons are competent to report observable symptoms of bilateral foot disability, they are not competent to provide an opinion linking a disability to active service, as that requires medical expertise and 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). Therefore, the Veteran is not competent to provide an etiological opinion in this case. Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim and entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing foot disability is not warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b) (2012); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). A. Dean Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board I. Umez-Eronini, Asscoiate 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.