Citation Nr: 21076761 Decision Date: 12/27/21 Archive Date: 12/27/21 DOCKET NO. 15-25 452 DATE: December 27, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability, to include as due to service-connected disability, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of a left foot disability or functional impairment equivalent thereto. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a left foot disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1131, 1112, 1113, 1116, 1137, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active military service from July 1977 to August 1981. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In May 2019, the Veteran testified at a hearing. The transcript of the hearing is of record. By way of background, in November 2019, the Board remanded the issues of entitlement to service connection for a low back disability, left hip disability, left ankle disability, and left foot disability. During the appeal process, in a July 2021 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for a left ankle disability and a left hip disability. In an August 2021 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for a low back disability and left lower extremity radiculopathy. As such, the only remaining issue on appeal is entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability. Service Connection Generally, to establish service connection a veteran must show: "(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." Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may also be granted for any injury or disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease or injury was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability, to include as due to service-connected disability, is denied. In the May 2019 hearing, the Veteran asserted that his left foot disability manifested as a result of his service-connected left femur and left knee disability. He attested that he has numbness of the left lower extremity down to his toes. He stated that his left lower extremity is shorter than his right lower extremity due to his service-connected left femur and left knee disability which aggravates his left foot. Despite his contentions, based on a review of the record, the Board finds that he does not meet the requirements for service connection for a left foot disability as the weight of the evidence is against a finding of a current disability. A review of the service treatment records (STRs) shows that in April 1978 the Veteran was involved in a motorcycle accident and sustained a left femur fracture compound and open left knee patella. In an October 1978 STR, he returned to full duty. In an October 1979 medical board assessment, he was noted to be well-healed and fit for full duty. See July 2012 Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings. In the July 1981 separation examination, he exhibited normal lower extremities and normal feet except for scars on the left thigh. He denied having swollen or painful joints, foot trouble, or arthritis. The STRs do not reflect any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of left foot related impairment. A review of the post-service treatment records shows that he was afforded VA examinations in July 2013 and February 2020 with an addendum medical opinion in November 2020. In the July 2013 VA examination, the examiner determined that he does not have a current foot condition. On examination, he exhibited normal findings to include neurological findings. There was no pain or functional loss of his left foot. The examiner opined that the claimed condition is less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. He explained that the Veteran does not have a chronic left foot condition and that the examination is normal. In the February 2020 VA examination, the examiner determined that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis associated with a left foot disability. He endorsed having pain on the bottom of his left foot, but on examination he exhibited no pain and no functional loss. The Veteran stated that the pain in his foot impacts his ability to walk more than a mile without increased pain, and that the foot causes increased pain when sitting, which the examiner stated may be related to radicular pain rather than foot pain per se. As such, the examiner opined that the claimed condition is less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. The examiner also opined that the claimed condition is less likely than not proximately due to or the result of the Veteran's service-connected condition. The examiner explained that there is no diagnosis on examination and no findings to support a diagnosis of a foot condition. In the November 2020 VA addendum opinion, the examiner opined that it is less likely than not that the Veteran's left foot condition was aggravated beyond its natural progression by his service-connected left knee and left healed distal femur fracture. The examiner explained that a review of the medical records does not provide any documentation or test results indicating that he has been diagnosed with a left foot disability. The Board notes that the existence of a current disability is the cornerstone finding, of a claim for VA disability compensation. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; see Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328, 1332 (1997) (holding that interpretation of sections 1110 and 1131 of the statute as requiring the existence of a present disability for VA compensation purposes cannot be considered arbitrary). Evidence must show that the Veteran currently has the disability for which benefits are being claimed. Moreover, while functional impairment absent a formal diagnosis can in some circumstances enable an award of service connection, in this case the Veteran did not exhibit any pain or functional loss in the July 2013 VA examination and the February 2020 VA examination. Moreover, the extensive medical records do not reflect any foot related diagnosis, other than left lower extremity radiculopathy, for which he is already being compensated for at 20 percent. The Board further notes that although the Veteran argued that the February 2020 VA examiner specializes in family practice and as such, he does not have the expertise in orthopedic and/or podiatric disorder, the Board finds that this argument holds little to no merit. Dr. E.M. is a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine and would have the requisite expertise to diagnose the Veteran. The February 2020 VA examiner provided a complete review of the claims file and conducted a physical examination of the Veteran. Moreover, the July 2013 and November 2020 VA examiners also determined that there is no left foot disability. Further, as noted above, his treatment records are also void of any left foot disability. Absent the bare assertion made by the Veteran's representative that the VA examiner was not qualified to offer an opinion, there is no persuasive evidence to support such assertion. Here, as noted above, the evidence does not establish that the Veteran currently experiences a diagnosable left foot disability. In the absence of a current disability, the analysis ends, and the claim for service connection for a left foot disability cannot be granted. See Gilpin v. West, 155 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). S. HENEKS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board P. Noh, 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.