Citation Nr: 21002363 Decision Date: 01/13/21 Archive Date: 01/13/21 DOCKET NO. 18-31 584 DATE: January 13, 2021 ORDER Service connection for pseudofolliculitis barbae is granted. Service connection for a right knee condition is denied. Service connection for a left knee condition is denied. Service connection for migraines is denied. Service connection for a right eye injury is denied. Service connection for a left shoulder condition is denied. Service connection for a right shoulder condition is granted. Service connection for a bilateral foot condition is denied. REMANDED Service connection for a skin condition, other than pseudofolliculitis barbae, is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The weight of the evidence shows that the Veteran was diagnosed with pseudofolliculitis barbae during his active duty service and the Veteran credibly testified that he continues to experience bumps on his face, similar to the ones he had during his active duty service. 2. The weight of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has a current bilateral knee condition, which results in functional impairment of his earning capacity, as a result of his military service. 3. The weight of the evidence is against a finding that there is a medical nexus between the Veteran’s migraines and his active duty service. 4. The weight of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has a current diagnosis for a right eye condition; or a current eye disability that is otherwise related to his in-service right eye injury. 5. The weight of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has a current diagnosis for a left shoulder disability; or that a current left shoulder disability is otherwise related to his active duty service. 6. The weight of the evidence supports a finding that the Veteran’s right shoulder disability is etiologically related to his in-service injuries. 7. The weight of the evidence supports finding that the Veteran has been diagnosed with calcaneal bone spurs in his left foot; however, there has been no competent medical evidence indicating or suggesting that the left foot calcaneal bone spurs are related to his active duty service. 8. The weight of the evidence supports finding that the Veteran has neuropathic sensations in his left foot, consistent with a lumbar nerve compression; however, the Veteran is not service connected for any low back disabilities. 9. The weight of the evidence is against a finding that any right foot disability resulted from the Veteran’s military service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for pseudofolliculitis barbae have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. 2. The criteria for service connection for a bilateral knee condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. 3. The criteria for service connection for migraines have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. 4. The criteria for service connection for a right eye injury have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. 5. The criteria for service connection for a left shoulder condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. 6. The criteria for service connection for a right shoulder condition have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. 7. The criteria for service connection for a bilateral foot condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from December 1971 to August 1974. The Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in February 2020. A transcript of that hearing is of record. Service Connection Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (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. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Board may also consider pain as a current disability as outlined above; however, to be considered as such, the pain must rise to the level of functional impairment of earning capacity. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303; Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Service connection may also be established on a secondary basis for a disability which is proximately due to or the result of service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (a). Establishing service connection on a secondary basis requires evidence sufficient to show (1) that a current disability exists and (2) that the current disability was either (a) proximately caused by or (b) proximately aggravated by a service-connected disability. Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995) (en banc). 1. Service connection for pseudofolliculitis barbae is granted. The Veteran is seeking service connection for pseudofolliculitis barbae. Service treatment records (STRs) show that he had skin problems on his face, with a diagnosis of pseudofolliculitis barbae about five months after his entrance into the military. See STR dated April 19, 1972. The Veteran credibly testified that he did not have bumps on his face before entering the military. He also testified that he still experiences bumps on his face, similar to the ones he had during his active duty service. He stated that even though he tries not to shave anymore, he still gets bumps through his hair. Here, the Veteran’s STRs show that he was diagnosed with pseudofolliculitis barbae during his active duty service and he has credibly testified that he still experiences similar symptoms to this day. As such, the Board finds that the Veteran’s pseudofolliculitis barbae is related to his active duty service. Accordingly, the Board finds that the criteria for service connection for pseudofolliculitis barbae has been met and the claim is granted. 2. Service connection for a bilateral knee condition is denied. The Veteran asserts that he injured his knees when he was blown by jet exhaust approximately 25 yards into a safety net while working on an aircraft carrier. The Veteran’s STRs are silent for any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis for any knee conditions. However, at his February 2020 Board hearing, the Veteran credibly testified that while working on the flight deck, he was blown by an aircraft carrier’s exhaust during a landing process, which caused him to get blown about 25 to 30 yards into a hard safety net. He testified that after that fall, he experienced aching in his knees and would sometimes hear a “pop” in his knees. Here, the Veteran has shown that there was an in-service injury to his knees. The Veteran’s post-service medical records show that he is currently diagnosed with arthralgia in his knees. See VA Treatment Record dated May 9, 2017. The Board notes that arthralgia is merely a diagnosis of pain. See DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY 150 (32d ed. 2012) (defining “arthralgia” as simply “pain in a joint). While pain alone does not constitute a disorder warranting service connection, pain causing an impairment of earning capacity is considered a current disability. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303; Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). After a careful review of the Veteran’s claims file and a review of the February 2020 Board hearing transcript, there is no assertion or suggestion that the Veteran’s bilateral knee pain affects his ability to work or otherwise affects his earning capacity. The Veteran testified that he injured his knees during an accident on an aircraft carrier and that he sometimes experiences popping in his knees; however, he did not testify that his knee pain caused him to miss work, affected his ability to perform the duties of a job, or caused impairment of earning capacity. Further, the Veteran’s claims file is absent for any communication or any other indication that his bilateral knee pain has caused functional impairment that affects his earning capacity. The Board notes that the Veteran is currently retired, but he reported that he now enjoys welding and working on cars. See VA Treatment Record dated October 1, 2019. The Board also notes that before he retired, he received workman’s compensation for an injury at work; however, he reported that the work accident resulted in right shoulder and back pain, not knee pain. See VA Treatment Record dated November 26, 2018. Here, the evidence of record indicates that the Veteran is still able to perform physical tasks, such as welding and working on cars, and that his work limitations, prior to his retirement, were not due to his knee pain. As such, the Board finds that although the Veteran has been diagnosed with bilateral knee arthralgia, the evidence of record has shown no suggestion that the condition has risen to the level of functional impairment of earning capacity and as a result, finds that the diagnosis for bilateral knee arthralgia is not a current disability. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303; Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In the absence of proof of a current disability, there can be no valid claim for service connection. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). The requirement that a current disability be present is satisfied “when a claimant has a disability at the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or during the pendency of that claim...even though the disability resolves prior to the Secretary’s adjudication of the claim.” McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007). Here, the Veteran has described pain and popping in his knees, however, the evidence has not shown that his pain has risen to the level of functional impairment of earning capacity, such that his diagnosis for arthralgia would be considered a chronic disability. Wait v. Wilkie, 2020 U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 1609, __ Vet. App. __, 2020 WL 5200689. The Board also notes that there has been no evidence from a medically competent source that is otherwise suggestive that the Veteran’s bilateral knee arthralgia is related to his in-service injury. Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidence is against the claim and service connection for a bilateral knee condition is denied. 3. Service connection for migraines is denied. The Veteran asserts that his currently diagnosed migraine headaches are due to his active duty service. The Veteran credibly testified that during his active duty service, he was part of the boxing team. He testified that his migraine headaches started after he started boxing. The Veteran’s STRs also show that he presented multiple times to the sick bay for treatment for headaches. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in August 2019. After an in-person examination and a review of the Veteran’s claims file, the examiner acknowledged the Veteran’s diagnosis of migraines. The examiner acknowledged both the Veteran’s in-service complaints of headache pain, and his belief that his headaches began after the injury on the flight deck. However, the examiner opined that the Veteran’s migraines were less likely than not due to his in-service injury, explaining that the medical records show that his headaches were caused by hypertension or hypertension treatment. Here, the Veteran’s credible testimony and his STRs show that he had in-service complaints of headache pain, and has a current diagnosis for migraines. Given the foregoing, he was afforded a VA examination, but unfortunately, the examiner provided a negative nexus opinion. The Board notes that the Veteran has not offered any medically competent evidence that would undermine the opinion of record or otherwise suggest that there is a medical nexus between the Veteran’s in-service headaches and his current diagnosis for migraines. Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidence is against the claim and service connection for migraines is denied. 4. Service connection for a right eye injury is denied. The Veteran asserts that his right eye injury is due to his active duty service. The Veteran credibly testified that he had a right eye injury during his active duty service as a result of boxing. His STRs show that he had an eye abrasion. See STR dated June 17, 1972. After a careful review of the Veteran’s post-service treatment records, it does not show any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis for any eye conditions. The Board notes that there was a treatment note that related to the Veteran’s eyes; “no blurred, no double vision, no eye trauma.” See VA Treatment Record dated June 14, 2019. Here, the Veteran has shown that there was an in-service injury to his right eye, as his STRs have shown that he had an eye abrasion. However, the medical evidence of record does not indicate that there is a current diagnosis for any eye conditions, nor is there any suggestion that a currently diagnosed eye condition is otherwise related to his in-service injury. In the absence of proof of a current disability, there can be no valid claim for service connection. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). The requirement that a current disability be present is satisfied “when a claimant has a disability at the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or during the pendency of that claim...even though the disability resolves prior to the Secretary’s adjudication of the claim.” McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007). Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidence is against the claim and service connection for a right eye injury is denied. 5. Service connection for a left shoulder condition is denied; but service connection for a right shoulder condition is granted. The Veteran asserts that he injured his shoulders during an accident while on the flight deck. The STRs are silent for any complaints of left shoulder pain, but the Veteran credibly testified that he injured both of his shoulders during the accident on the flight deck. The STRs do show that he complained of right shoulder pain, after injuring it at the gym. See STR dated May 20, 1974. The Board notes that the Veteran’s VA treatment records show that he has arthritis in his right AC joint. See VA Treatment Record dated May 5, 2008. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in November 2016. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with a right rotator cuff tear and a right shoulder strain, but did not diagnose any conditions in the left shoulder. After an in-person examination and a review of the Veteran’s claims file, the examiner opined that the Veteran’s right shoulder condition was at least as likely as not caused by his in-service injury. The examiner explained that the Veteran’s right shoulder strain was incurred by his military service because he hurt his shoulder in the service and continues to have current shoulder pain. Here, the Veteran has shown that he had an in-service injury to both of his shoulders. However, the evidence has shown that he only has a current diagnosis and a positive medical nexus opinion for his right shoulder. After a careful review of the Veteran’s post-service medical records, there were complaints, treatment, and diagnoses for a right shoulder disability. There were a few complaints of left shoulder pain and he had a physical therapy home exercise program, but there has been no diagnosis for a left shoulder condition. Given the Veteran’s complaints, he was provided with a VA examination for his shoulders, but the examination failed to find a diagnosis for the left shoulder. As such, the record does not show any current diagnosis for a left shoulder condition; therefore, service connection cannot be granted. In the absence of proof of a current disability, there can be no valid claim for service connection. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). The requirement that a current disability be present is satisfied “when a claimant has a disability at the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or during the pendency of that claim...even though the disability resolves prior to the Secretary’s adjudication of the claim.” McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007). Accordingly, service connection for a left shoulder condition is denied; but service connection for a right shoulder condition is granted. 6. Service connection for a bilateral foot condition is denied. The Veteran asserts that his current foot pain is related to his active duty service, but failed to explain why in any writing. Additionally, he specifically declined to give testimony regarding his foot condition. The Board notes that the December 2016 rating decision stated that the Veteran’s entrance examination showed that he was diagnosed with pes planus. However, after a careful review of the Veteran’s STRs and the entrance examination, it does not show a diagnosis for pes planus, or any other foot condition noted upon examination or during his active duty service. See Entrance Examination dated November 14, 1971. His STRs did show that he had a tender area on the bottom of his right heel. See STR dated November 4, 1972. The Veteran’s post-service medical records show that he did complain of bilateral foot pain, with an emphasis on his left foot. A January 2019 note shows that he was found to have calcaneal spurring in his left foot. See VA Treatment Record dated January 23, 2019. However, there has been no indication or suggestion by any competent medical source that the calcaneal spurring is due to the Veteran’s active duty service. The Veteran has also been found to have neuropathic sensations in his left foot, consistent with a lumbar nerve compression. See VA Treatment Record dated September 13, 2019. However, the Veteran is not service-connected for a lumbar spine disability and therefore is not entitled to service connection on a secondary basis for his left foot neuropathy. In regard to the Veteran’s right foot pain, the evidence of record does not show that the Veteran has a current diagnosis for any right foot condition, or that his right foot symptoms are otherwise related to the tender area he experienced in his right heel during his active duty service. Here, the Veteran has shown a diagnosis for calcaneal bone spurs and neuropathic sensations in his left foot. However, there has been no suggestion by any competent medical source that the calcaneal spurring is related to his active duty service; and the Veteran is not service-connected for a lumbar spine disability, which disqualifies the Veteran for service connection for left foot neuropathy as secondary to the lumbar spine. Lastly, the Veteran has not been shown to have a current diagnosis for a right foot condition. Accordingly, service connection for a bilateral foot condition is denied. REASONS FOR REMAND Service connection for a skin condition is remanded. The Veteran asserts that he is entitled to service connection for a skin condition on his back and buttocks. The Veteran’s STRs show that he had a rash on his back with itching on two different occasions. See STR dated November 8, 1973 and March 9, 1974. The Veteran credibly testified that he still has skin problems on his back, as his wife notices dry areas on his back, which she does not want to touch. Here, the Veteran’s STRs show that he had in-service incurrences related to his skin condition on his back. The Veteran’s credible testimony indicates that he still is currently afflicted with a dry skin condition on his back. The Board notes that the Veteran has not received a VA examination for this skin condition. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Veteran should be afforded a VA examination for the skin condition on his back. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a skin examination. The examiner should diagnose any skin conditions on the Veteran’s back and buttocks area. If there is a diagnosis, the examiner should opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater) that any diagnosed skin conditions either began during or was otherwise caused by the Veteran’s military service. Why or why not? The examiner should consider the Veteran’s in-service complaints of a rash on his back (November 8, 1973 and March 9, 1974). MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Fu, 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.