Citation Nr: 21074070 Decision Date: 12/14/21 Archive Date: 12/14/21 DOCKET NO. 11-14 498 DATE: December 14, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service-connection for a left foot condition is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has had left foot disability at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for left 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 from November 1967 to July 1970, to include service to the Republic of Vietnam. The Veteran testified at a hearing with the undersigned in April 2017. The claim was most recently before the Board in May 2021 when it was remanded for further development. The Board initially remanded the claim in July 2017 to address the Veteran's assertion that his left foot disability was related to a claimed back disability that was also before the Board. Service connection has since been granted for the back disability and for left lower extremity radiculopathy associated with that disability. Subsequent remands were undertaken to determine whether the Veteran had a separately diagnosed left foot disability at any time during the appeal period; that is, since June 2009. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of a left foot condition and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). Service treatment records show no complaints, diagnosis, or treatment related to a foot disability. During the July 1970 separation examination, evaluation of the feet were normal. The report of an October 2017 VA examination included the Veteran's reported history of having had jungle rot and that only his ankles bothered him. He stated he had a heel spur in his foot "decades ago" but never broke anything in his foot. The Veteran reported no pain, functional loss, or flare-ups of his left foot. On examination, there were no hammertoes, no deformities, no tenderness, no swelling, and no loss of range of motion. A calcaneus spur of the left foot from October 2017 but was noted to be an incidental finding. The examiner was confused by what foot condition they were being asked to evaluate as the evidence of record concerned the Veteran's ankles, not his feet. The examiner concluded that the heel spur was less likely related to an in-service injury or event. On December 2019 VA examination, the Veteran denied any injury or pathology to the left foot, other than the aforementioned jungle rot (also identified as tinea pedis or athlete's foot). The examiner concluded the Veteran did not have a current disability or diagnosis of the left foot. A June 2020 opinion was obtained. The examiner found that the left heel spur identified in March 1998 was less likely related to service as he did not have any complaints of left foot pain in service. At a February 2021 VA examination, the Veteran stated that he did not have a left foot problem and denied pain in his heel, foot, and toes. The Veteran questioned why he was being examined for a left foot condition. The examiner noted the only complaints the Veteran had regarding his left foot were radicular in nature, of which he was already service connected. The Board remanded the claim in May 2021 to determine whether the Veteran had a diagnosed left foot disability at any time since June 2009, when the claim was initiated. The AOJ attempted to schedule the Veteran for another examination regarding his left foot disability claim. In a June 2021 phone conversation, the Veteran stated he was satisfied with his current rating and that his issue is not with his foot, but his ankle. He requested his claim be cancelled. In response to the August 2021 supplemental statement of the case, the Veteran's returned the waiver form related to AOJ consideration of additional evidence. He signed the form in October 2021 and requested all further actions be stopped on the issue. An August 2017 opinion related the Veteran's left foot/ankle tenderness to residuals of his service-connected right ankle fracture, but the opinion does not clarify whether the identified disability is the ankle or foot. There was no separate diagnosis of a foot disability. The remainder of the examinations do not note any diagnosed foot disability. Further, the Veteran has made repeated statements, most recently in October 2021, that he does not have a left foot disability. The Board concludes that the preponderance of evidence is against a finding of a left foot disability at any time during the appeal period and the claim must be denied. M.E. Larkin Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Jarman, 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.