Citation Nr: A21020346 Decision Date: 12/21/21 Archive Date: 12/21/21 DOCKET NO. 211122-199349 DATE: December 21, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for left groin hernia residuals is granted. FINDING OF FACT It is reasonably shown that the Veteran's left groin hernia had its onset (became manifest) in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW Service connection for left groin hernia residuals is warranted. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The appellant is a Veteran who served on active duty from November 1969 to November 1971. A February 2019 Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) rating decision denied service connection for a left groin hernia. In February 2020, the Veteran filed a supplemental claim. A July 2020 rating decision denied the claim based on all the evidence then of record. In May 2021, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 20-0996, requesting Higher Level review (HLR) of his claim. A May 2021 HLR decision affirmed the denial of the claim (considering the evidence of record at the time of the July 2020 rating decision). The Veteran appealed the May 2021 rating decision to the Board in a November 2021 VA Form 10182 (Notice of Disagreement and appeal), and elected the Direct Review lane. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the July 2020 rating decision. Entitlement to service connection for left groin hernia residuals is granted. The Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) are silent for complaints or findings concerning a left groin hernia. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To substantiate a claim of service connection there must be evidence of: (1) a current disability (for which service connection is sought); (2) incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service; and (3) a nexus between the claimed disability and the disease or injury in service. See Shedden v, Principi, 381 F.3d 1153, 1166-1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A December 10, 1971 treatment record notes that the Veteran was discharged from service in November 1971. He reported stomach trouble, cramping pain, a recent bout of vomiting, and left groin pain. The Veteran related that he had experienced epigastric pain for approximately 2 years during service. September 2015 VA treatment records note a history of hernia repair, and the Veteran reported that during service he was informed that he needed a hernia operation, but he declined and did not have hernia surgery until after his separation from service. In a January 2020 medical statement, a VA provider indicated that he had been treating the Veteran since June 2011 and that although a hernia was not currently present, the Veteran reported constant achy left groin pain. The Veteran related that he underwent hernia surgery in 1972 or 1973 at St. Anne's Hospital in Chicago, which had been closed for several years. The provider indicated that he reviewed the VA claims file and opined that it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran's current hernia/left groin pain residuals were at least as likely as not manifested in military service, as indicated in his military record. He explained that the residual left groin pain was likely related to his inguinal hernia repair and that such chronic pain issues were not uncommon following repair and may be related to scar tissue or nerve entrapment. In February 2020, the Veteran submitted an article which notes that St. Anne's Hospital closed in 1988. In a February 2020 statement, the Veteran reported that he often engaged in heavy lifting during service and sought treatment for his stomach and groin pain while he was stationed in Germany. He was provided Mylanta, and when he sought treatment, he was advised to continue taking Mylanta, but the use of the medication did not alleviate his symptoms. The Veteran related that he experienced stomach and/or groin pain for approximately 2 years during service. He related that prior to his discharge from service, he was informed that he had a hernia and needed surgery, but if he desired surgery, he would have to extend his enlistment. The Veteran decided not to extend his enlistment and sought treatment at a local hospital shortly after his separation from service. He related that he had hernia surgery in 1972 or 1973 but the hospital closed, and no records of the hernia surgery are available. The Veteran reported that since the hernia surgery he has had constant pain in his left groin area. On July 2020 VA examination, the examiner indicated that a December 1971 medical record notes that the Veteran reported abdominal pain and left groin pain and that in a separate statement related that during service he was informed he needed an operation to correct a hernia but did not undergo the procedure until after service. The examiner noted that the Veteran reported undergoing hernia surgery in 1972 or 1973 at the (now closed) St. Anne's Hospital, and indicated that another VA doctor had confirmed the left inguinal hernia and that it likely manifested in service. The examiner opined that based on the Veteran's reports, surgical scars, and findings on examination, it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran incurred either a left inguinal hernia or femoral hernia during service for which he later received surgical treatment. The record shows that the Veteran sought treatment in December 1971 for left groin pain, approximately one month after his discharge from service. He has related in multiple statements that he underwent surgery to repair a left inguinal hernia in 1972 or 1973 at St. Anne's Hospital, which has unfortunately closed, and records of such procedure are unavailable. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran's STRs do not show the complaints in service he reports. However, the Veteran has provided a plausible explanation why his complaints in service are not documented in service records, and he has submitted an early post service (from December 1971) treatment record documenting his report of left groin pain. It is well-established in caselaw that the Board may not reject a Veteran's reports as not credible merely on the basis that they are not corroborated by contemporaneous clinically recorded data. Indeed, the Veteran is competent to describe his in-service groin pain because those symptoms come to him through his senses and requires only personal knowledge rather than medical expertise. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Board finds the Veteran's statements to be credible. Lay testimony is competent to establish the presence of observable symptomatology and may provide sufficient support for a claim of service connection. Id. Additionally, January 2020 and July 2020 VA providers opined that it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran's left groin residuals were related to his service. The most probative evidence of record (i.e., the medical opinion by the VA examiner in July 2020 which the Board finds no reason to question, as such opinion is supported by adequate rationale) supports that the Veteran's left groin hernia residuals became manifest in service. As opposed to the January 2020 examiner who suggested that the STRs showed treatment for left groin pain, the July 2020 examiner correctly indicated that the Veteran sought such treatment shortly after service (in December 1971) but still found that the left groin residuals were related to his service particularly in light of his statements about in-service pain. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor (as mandated by law under 38 C.F.R. § 3.102), the Board finds that it is reasonably shown that the Veteran's left inguinal hernia became manifest in service, and that service connection for left groin hernia residuals is warranted. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990); 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. SPENCER L. LAYTON Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Bayles, 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.