Citation Nr: 21062984 Decision Date: 10/12/21 Archive Date: 10/12/21 DOCKET NO. 10-10 210 DATE: October 12, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a cold weather injury of the bilateral upper extremities is denied. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a cold weather injury of the bilateral lower extremities is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The competent evidence does not demonstrate that the Veteran currently has a diagnosable residual condition of a cold injury to the bilateral hands, nor has he experienced such a condition during the pendency of the appeal or recent to the filing of the claim. 2. The competent evidence does not demonstrate that the Veteran currently has a diagnosable residual condition of a cold injury to the bilateral feet, nor has he experienced such a condition during the pendency of the appeal or recent to the filing of the claim. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for residuals of a cold weather injury of the bilateral upper extremities have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for residuals of a cold weather injury of the bilateral lower extremities have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from March 1974 to February 1992, from July 2004 to June 2005, and from June 2005 to May 2006. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a February 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board remanded the matters for further development in November 2018 and December 2020. The Board finds that the RO substantially complied with its remand directives, and the Board may now proceed with adjudication. Service Connection 1. and 2. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a cold weather injury of the bilateral upper extremities and entitlement to service connection for residuals of a cold weather injury of the bilateral lower extremities The Veteran asserts that he experiences residuals of cold weather injuries in his bilateral lower and upper extremities. Entitlement to service connection requires evidence of three elements: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship or nexus between the current disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during active service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In this case, the Veteran contends that he experiences residual symptomatology impacting his bilateral arms and legs that is attributable to cold injuries he sustained while in service. As the evidence in support of both claims is largely identical, the Board will consider them together. To that end, without delving into the question of the potential etiology of the claimed residual conditions, the Board finds that the Veteran has never been diagnosed with a residual condition impacting either the legs or arms that is attributable to an in-service cold injury, and there is no evidence to suggest that such a diagnosis is appropriate; as such, entitlement to service connection must be denied. The Veteran's service treatment records (STR) are negative for cold weather injuries or complaints. August 2009 VA treatment records reflect the Veteran complaining of sensitivity to cold in his left upper extremity and right lower extremity. In December 2009 VA treatment records, the Veteran reported that cold weather caused his arthritic conditions to be more pronounced. In an August 2012 statement in support of his claim, the Veteran reported that he was exposed to extremely cold weather during service, and he had experienced numbness and pain in his extremities afterward as a result. See also April 2014 Notice of Disagreement (NOD) statement. In a May 2014 private protocol examination for cold injuries, the Veteran reported in-service cold weather injuries and subsequent residuals, including chronic pain and numbness. During the Veteran's September 2015 VA examination for peripheral nerve conditions, he reported constant back pain during cold weather. During the Veteran's November 2015 VA examination for foot conditions, he reported increased foot pain during cold weather. During the Veteran's September 2019 VA examination for peripheral nerve conditions, regarding his claim for service connection for residuals of a cold weather injury of both the bilateral upper and lower extremities, the examiner opined that the Veteran's condition was less likely than not related to service. He instead related the Veteran's lower extremity symptoms to his already service-connected lower extremity radiculopathy. Regarding the upper extremities, the examiner opined that the condition was less likely than not related to service. He related the Veteran's upper extremity symptoms to his service-connected cervical spine degenerative joint disease and the resulting bilateral upper extremity radiculopathy. During the Veteran's April 2021 VA examination for cold injury residuals, the examiner found he was negative for a diagnosable cold weather residual condition of the upper or lower extremities. The Veteran reported that his conditions began during service and that he experienced chronic cold-weather-related pain or numbness afterward. The examiner opined that because there was no diagnosable condition, the claimed condition was less likely than not related to service. The examiner indicated they had reviewed the Veteran's medical records, including his lay statements. They found his symptoms were more likely due to his upper extremity carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), bilateral upper extremity radiculopathy, and other foot conditions not related to cold weather injuries. The examiner also found no objective evidence warranting a diagnosis for a cold weather condition. Given the examiner's expertise and the detail and quality of the rationale, the Board lends the April 2021 VA examination report significant probative weight. In considering the Veteran's contentions, the Board notes that he is competent to observe lay symptoms but does not have the training or credentials to provide a competent opinion as to etiology, diagnosis, or the onset date of a medical disability. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). His lay contentions are thus of markedly lower probative value than, and are outweighed by, the April 2021 VA examination opinion and medical evidence of record. Ultimately, there is no competent evidence that the Veteran has a cold weather injury residual condition impacting either the bilateral arms or legs, or symptomatology that suggests that a diagnosis of such conditions would be appropriate. Moreover, as the April 2021 examiner performed an in-person evaluation and thoroughly reviewed the claims file prior to determining that the Veteran did not have a diagnosable cold weather injury residual condition that impacted the arms or legs, the Board concludes that this examination is the most probative evidence of record. Sklar v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 140 (1993). Accordingly, without supporting records, the Board finds that the Veteran does not have a cold weather injury residual condition impacting either the bilateral arms or legs and has not had such conditions during the appeal period. The Veteran himself does not have the medical training or credentials to offer an opinion as to a diagnosis or its etiology. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Service connection is denied for both claimed conditions. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). As the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran's claims, the benefit-of-the-doubt standard of proof does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b). K. Anderson Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Hicks, 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.