Citation Nr: A21020462 Decision Date: 12/22/21 Archive Date: 12/22/21 DOCKET NO. 190924-33049 DATE: December 22, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to an increased rating for service-connected left shoulder disability is dismissed. Entitlement to an increased rating for service-connected lumbar spine arthritis is dismissed. Entitlement to an increased rating for service-connected hypertension is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for hepatitis C is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, is denied. Entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a stomach disorder is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a right hip disorder, to include as secondary to service-connected lumbar spine arthritis, is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On July 21, 2021, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board received notification from the Veteran that a withdrawal of his appeal for an increased rating of his service-connected left shoulder disability is requested. 2. On July 21, 2021, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board received notification from the Veteran that a withdrawal of his appeal for an increased rating of his service-connected lumbar spine arthritis is requested. 3. On July 21, 2021, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board received notification from the Veteran that a withdrawal of his appeal for an increased rating of his service-connected hypertension is requested. 4. On July 21, 2021, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board received notification from the Veteran that a withdrawal of his appeal for entitlement to service connection for hepatitis C is requested. 5. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that diabetes mellitus, type II, began during active service, within one year of service separation, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. 6. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that sleep apnea began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. 7. The Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of a stomach disorder. 8. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that a left knee disorder began during active service, within one year of service separation, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. 9. The Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of a right hip disorder. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal as to the issue of entitlement to an increased rating for service-connected left shoulder disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 2. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal as to the issue of entitlement to an increased rating for service-connected lumbar spine arthritis have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 3. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal as to the issue of entitlement to an increased rating for service-connected hypertension have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 4. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal as to the issue of entitlement to service connection for hepatitis C have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 5. The criteria for service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 6. The criteria for service connection for sleep apnea have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 7. The criteria for service connection for a stomach disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 8. The criteria for service connection for a left knee disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 9. The criteria for service connection for a right hip disorder, to include as secondary to service-connected lumbar spine arthritis, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from November 1976 to December 1998. On appeal is a July 2019 rating decision issued by a Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In May 2020, the Veteran filed a Form 10182 Notice of Disagreement (NOD) and opted to continue his appeal by having a hearing with a Veterans Law Judge. This option allows the Veteran to have a Board hearing and the opportunity to submit additional evidence in support of his appeal within 90 days after the Board hearing. A Board hearing was held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in July 2021, and a transcript of the proceedings is associated with the Veteran's file. The matter is now before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) for adjudication. Dismissal The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his or her authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 1. Entitlement to an increased rating for a service-connected left shoulder disability. 2. Entitlement to an increased rating for service-connected lumbar spine arthritis. 3. Entitlement to an increase rating for service-connected hypertension. 4. Entitlement to service connection for hepatitis C. In the present case, the Veteran has a pending appeal stemming from a July 2019 rating decision that increased the rating for his left shoulder disability to 20 percent; continued the 20 percent rating assigned for lumbar spine arthritis; continued the noncompensable rating for hypertension; and, denied service connection for Hepatitis C. At the July 2021 Board hearing in this matter before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge, the Veteran stated on the record that he wishes to withdraw his appeal for the issues of entitlement to increased ratings for left shoulder disability, lumbar spine arthritis, and hypertension, as well as the issue of entitlement to service connection for Hepatitis C. As such, the Veteran has withdrawn the appeal for these issues and, hence, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal of these issues, and the appeal of these issues is dismissed. Service Connection To prevail on a direct service connection claim, there must be competent evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, and (3) a nexus between the in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Certain chronic diseases identified as such in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a), such as arthritis and diabetes mellitus, will be presumed related to service if they were shown as chronic in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a one-year presumptive period following separation from service; or, if they were noted in service, with continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to the chronic disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258 (2015); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. Service connection may also be granted for a disability that is proximately due to, or aggravated by, service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. 5. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II. The Veteran seeks service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, or to service-connected disability. The Board has closely reviewed the medical and lay evidence in the Veteran's claims file and finds no evidence that may serve as a medical nexus between the Veteran's service, or any service-connected disability, and his diabetes mellitus, type II. The Veteran's service treatment records are associated with his claims file. These records are silent for any complaint, diagnosis or treatment of diabetes. The September 1976 entrance Report of Medical Examination reflects the Veteran had a normal examination, the only defect noted was hearing loss, and he was determined to be fit for duty. The July 1998 exit Report of Medical Examination reflects the Veteran had a normal examination with the only defect noted as hypertension controlled with medication. The Veteran's post service treatment records are associated with his claims file. These records show the Veteran has been diagnosed with diabetes mellitus, type II since at least March 2019. None of these records provide a nexus or link of the Veteran's diabetes mellitus, type II, and his service. Turning first to the Veteran's claim on a direct basis, the Board concedes that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, type II, but none of his treatment providers have provided an opinion that any such disability is related to service. There is simply no competent evidence of record to suggest that the Veteran's diabetes mellitus, type II, began in service, within one year of service separation, or is in any way related to his time on active duty. Thus, in this case, when weighing the evidence of record, the Board finds compelling the lack of evidence linking the Veteran's diabetes mellitus, type II, to his military service. In this case, the only evidence in favor of the Veteran's claim for service connection on a direct basis is his own statements concerning his belief that his diabetes mellitus, type II, diagnosed over 20 years after service, is due to service. With regard to the Veteran's contentions, although lay persons are competent to provide opinions on some medical issues, see Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011), as to the specific issue in this case, it falls outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Although the Veteran is competent to report symptoms of diabetes mellitus, type II, the claimed disability is not the type of condition that is amenable to lay determination regarding its etiology, as specific findings are needed to properly determine etiology. Id.; see Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). As such, the Board finds that, other than the Veteran's unsupported contentions, there is simply no evidence in the record of any etiological relationship between the Veteran's diabetes mellitus, type II, and his time in service. Additionally, the Veteran has not presented or identified any medical opinion that supports the claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, on a direct basis. Turning to the claim on a secondary basis, although acknowledging that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and is service-connected for a back disability, the Board concludes that the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran's diabetes mellitus is proximately due to or the result of, or aggravated beyond its natural progression by service-connected disability. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995) (en banc); 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). At the July 2021 Board hearing in this matter, the Veteran testified for the first time that he believed his diabetes was brought on by weight gain secondary to his service-connected back disability that not being able to exercise and move around caused him to gain weight, which in turn caused him to develop diabetes. The Board notes, however, that the Veteran did not raise this theory of entitlement or submit any evidence to support this theory prior to the July 2019 rating decision on appeal; thus, there can be no pre-decisional duty to assist error at the AOJ level by any failure to obtain a VA examination to further investigate this theory of entitlement. The Veteran believes his diabetes mellitus is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disability, to include having been caused by obesity brought about by his service-connected back disability. The Veteran, however, is not competent to provide a nexus opinion regarding this issue. The issue is medically complex, as it requires knowledge of the interaction between multiple organ systems in the body and interpretation of complicated medical pathology. Therefore, it is outside the competence of the Veteran in this case because the record does not show that he has the skills or medical training to make such a determination. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Kahana v. Shinseki, 24. Vet. App. 428 (2011). There is otherwise no evidence of record to support a conclusion that the Veteran's diabetes mellitus is due to, or has been aggravated by, his service-connected back disability. The claim must thus be denied on a secondary basis as well. In sum, the Board must conclude that the criteria for service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, have not been met. The evidence weighs against the Veteran's claim. Service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990). 6. Entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea. The Veteran contends that his sleep apnea is due to his service. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran's current diagnosis of sleep apnea began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. The Board has closely reviewed the medical and lay evidence in the Veteran's claims file and finds no evidence that may serve as a medical nexus between the Veteran's service and his currently diagnosed sleep apnea. The Veteran's service treatment records are silent as to any complaint, diagnosis, or treatment for sleep apnea. The September 1976 entrance Report of Medical Examination reflects the Veteran had a normal examination, the only defect noted was hearing loss, and he was determined to be fit for duty. The July 1998 exit Report of Medical Examination reflects the Veteran had a normal examination with the only defect noted as hypertension controlled with medication. The companion July 1998 Report of Medical History reflects the Veteran specifically denied frequent trouble sleeping. The Veteran's post service treatment records are associated with his claims file. These records show the Veteran has a current diagnosis of sleep apnea, with which he was first diagnosed in 2018. However, none of these records provide a nexus or link between the Veteran's military service and his current diagnosis of sleep apnea. In a July 2021 lay statement, the Veteran's spouse stated she has been married to the Veteran for 30 years and that the Veteran has had issues with sleeping, loud snoring, fidgeting, restlessness and bad dreams. At the July 2021 Board hearing in this matter, the Veteran testified that he had been snoring for long time - ever since his first basic training, but nobody paid attention because half the barracks snored. He stated he had a sleep study in 2018 and has had a diagnosis of sleep apnea and a prescribed CPAP ever since. The Board concedes that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of sleep apnea, but none of his treatment providers have provided an opinion that any such disability is related to service. There is simply no competent evidence of record to suggest that the Veteran's sleep apnea is in any way related to his time on active duty. Thus, in this case, when weighing the evidence of record, the Board finds compelling the lack of evidence linking the Veteran's sleep apnea to his military service. In this case, the only evidence in favor of the Veteran's claim is his own statements concerning his belief that his sleep apnea, diagnosed over 20 years after service, is due to service. With regard to the Veteran's contentions, although lay persons are competent to provide opinions on some medical issues, see Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011), as to the specific issue in this case, it falls outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Although the Veteran and his wife are competent to report symptoms of sleep apnea, the claimed disability is not the type of condition that is amenable to lay determination regarding its etiology, as specific findings are needed to properly determine etiology. Id.; see Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). As such, the Board finds that, other than the Veteran's unsupported contentions, there is simply no evidence in the record of any etiological relationship between the Veteran's sleep apnea and his time in service. Additionally, the Veteran has not presented or identified any medical opinion that supports the claim for service connection for sleep apnea. Thus, the criteria for service connection for sleep apnea have not been met. The evidence weighs against the Veteran's claim. Service connection for sleep apnea must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990). 7. Entitlement to service connection for a stomach disorder. The Veteran seeks service connection for a stomach disorder. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. As there is no competent evidence of a current stomach disorder, the Board concludes that the preponderance of the evidence is against granting service connection. The Veteran's service treatment records are associated with the file. The September 1976 entrance Report of Medical Examination reflects the Veteran had a normal examination, the only defect noted was hearing loss, and he was determined to be fit for duty. During service, a June 1987 record reflects a complaint of epigastric burning and vomiting, and a diagnosis of gastroenteritis. The July 1998 exit Report of Medical Examination reflects the Veteran had a normal examination with the only defect noted as hypertension controlled with medication. The companion July 1998 Report of Medical History reflects the Veteran specifically denied frequent indigestion and stomach issues. The Veteran's post service treatment records are associated with his claims file. These records are silent as to any complaint, diagnosis, or treatment for a stomach disorder. A March 2019 record reflects the Veteran had no gastrointestinal symptoms and his appetite had not decreased. There was no dysphagia; no pain on swallowing; no heartburn; no nausea; no vomiting; no hematemesis; no abdominal pain; no bright red blood per rectum; no diarrhea; and, no constipation. An April 2019 record reflects the Veteran presented to a clinic for follow-up of an ER visit for elevated blood sugars. Upon review of his systems, the examiner noted the Veteran had no gastrointestinal symptoms. It was noted his appetite had not decreased; there was no dysphagia and no pain on swallowing; no heartburn; no nausea; no vomiting; no hematemesis, no abdominal pain; no jaundice; no melena; no bright red blood per rectum; no diarrhea; and, no constipation. At the July 2021 Board hearing in this matter, the Veteran testified that his stomach started to bother him during service; that it started getting worse when he got out of service; that he started seeing a doctor; and that he takes medication to keep acid reflux down. Upon review of the record, the Board finds that there is simply nothing in the record to document a current stomach disorder. The Board acknowledges the Veteran's report of a stomach disorder. However, in order to warrant service connection, the threshold requirement is competent evidence of the existence of the claimed disability at some point during a Veteran's appeal. See McClain, 21 Vet. App. 319; Degmetich, 104 F.3d 1328; Brammer, 3 Vet. App. 223. In this case, while the Veteran is competent as a layperson to testify to symptoms he experiences, he has not demonstrated that he has the necessary skills, experience, or medical knowledge to diagnose a stomach disorder; this is a complex medical question. Consequently, the Board concludes that the Veteran's statements and opinions as to diagnosis and etiology are of little probative value. See Jandreau, 492 F.3d 1372. Even in light of Saunders, the Board finds that the Veteran does not have a current stomach disorder as the evidence of record does not indicate the Veteran's claimed stomach disorder has caused functional impairment of earning capacity. Because the competent evidence of record does not establish that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of a stomach disorder, the claim must be denied. 8. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability. The Veteran contends that his left knee disability is due to his service. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran's current diagnosis of patellofemoral arthritis of the left knee began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. The Board has closely reviewed the medical and lay evidence in the Veteran's claims file and finds no evidence that may serve as a medical nexus between the Veteran's service and his currently diagnosed patellofemoral arthritis of the left knee. The Veteran's DD-214 reflects that he served for over 22 years of active duty, most of which was as an Infantryman in the United States Army. It also reflects the Veteran participated in "air assault school." The Veteran's service treatment records are silent as to any complaint, diagnosis, or treatment for a left knee disability. The September 1976 entrance Report of Medical Examination reflects the Veteran had a normal examination with the only defect noted as hearing loss, and he was determined to be fit for duty. The July 1998 exit Report of Medical Examination reflects the Veteran had a normal examination with the only defect noted as hypertension controlled with medication. The companion July 1998 Report of Medical History reflects the Veteran specifically denied a trick or locked knee; swollen or painful joints; arthritis; and bone, joint or other deformity. The Veteran's post service treatment records are associated with his claims file. These records show the Veteran has a current diagnosis of patellofemoral arthritis, with which he was first diagnosed in 2015. A July 2015 record reflects an MRI of the left knee showed mild patellofemoral arthritis. A later July 2015 record reflects the Veteran presented for evaluation of left knee. The examiner noted the Veteran complained of left knee pain that started on June 4 when he was standing up from a squatting position. MRI showed evidence of some early patellofemoral arthritis. No other significant findings were noted. Upon physical exam, the examiner noted good range of motion of the hips, knees and ankles without pain. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with "resolving left knee pain." A March 2019 record reflects the Veteran had no musculoskeletal symptoms, no muscle aches, no localized joint pain, no localized joint swelling, no limb pain, and no limb swelling. An April 2019 record reflects the Veteran presented to a clinic for follow-up of an ER visit for elevated blood sugars. As part of his overall assessment, review of his musculoskeletal system showed the Veteran had no musculoskeletal symptoms and his mobility was not limited. None of these records provide a nexus or link between the Veteran's military service and his current diagnosis of patellofemoral arthritis of the left knee. At the July 2021 Board hearing in this matter, the Veteran testified that there was no specific injury, his left knee just started to bother him over time. He also stated that during service he was in rappelling and air assault school and that he had been jumping and rappelling for 3 years. He stated there were lots of sudden stops when he hit the ground from rappelling. Presumptive Service Connection The Veteran has a current diagnosis of patellofemoral arthritis of the left knee. Arthritis is an enumerated condition under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a); Walker, 708 F.3d 1331. The Board finds, however, that the Veteran's patellofemoral arthritis of the left knee was not shown as chronic since service and did not manifest to a compensable degree within the presumptive period of one year. Post service treatment records show the Veteran was not diagnosed with patellofemoral arthritis of the left knee until 2015, over 17 years after his separation from service and years outside of the applicable presumptive period. Thus, entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability on a presumptive basis, or on the basis of continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to a chronic disease, is denied. Direct Service Connection In light of the above, the Board also concludes that service connection is not warranted for patellofemoral arthritis of the left knee on a direct basis. There is simply no competent evidence of record to suggest that the Veteran has patellofemoral arthritis of the left knee that is in any way related to his time on active duty. None of the Veteran's treatment providers have opined that his patellofemoral arthritis of the left knee is related to his active service. Thus, in this case, when weighing the evidence of record, the Board finds compelling the lack of evidence linking the Veteran's claimed patellofemoral arthritis of the left knee to his military service. The Veteran's service treatment records make clear that he did not have a complaint, diagnosis or treatment of a left knee disability during any of his active duty service, despite his participation in air assault school. Moreover, because the Veteran's post-service treatment records are associated with his claims file, the Board finds it significant that the Veteran's first diagnosis of patellofemoral arthritis of the left knee was not documented until 2015, over 17 years after his separation from active service in December 1998. In this case, the only evidence in favor of the Veteran's claim is his own statements concerning his belief that his claimed patellofemoral arthritis of the left knee is due to service. With regard to the Veteran's contentions, although lay persons are competent to provide opinions on some medical issues, see Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011), as to the specific issue in this case, it falls outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Although the Veteran is competent to report symptoms of a left knee disability such as pain, the claimed disability is not the type of condition that is amenable to lay determination regarding its etiology, as specific findings are needed to properly determine etiology. Id.; see Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). As such, the Board finds that other than the Veteran's unsupported contentions, there is simply no evidence in the record of any etiological relationship between the Veteran's claimed left knee disability and his time in active duty service. Thus, the criteria for service connection for patellofemoral arthritis of the left knee have not been met. The evidence weighs against the Veteran's claim. Service connection for a left knee disability must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990). 9. Entitlement to service connection for a right hip disorder, to include as secondary to service-connected lumbar spine arthritis. The Veteran seeks service connection for a right hip disorder, to include as secondary to service-connected lumbar spine arthritis. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. As there is no competent evidence of a current right hip disorder, the Board concludes that the preponderance of the evidence is against granting service connection. The Veteran's service treatment records are associated with the file. The September 1976 entrance Report of Medical Examination reflects the Veteran had a normal examination with the only defect noted as hearing loss, and he was determined to be fit for duty. The July 1998 exit Report of Medical Examination reflects the Veteran had a normal examination with the only defect noted as hypertension controlled with medication. The companion July 1998 Report of Medical History reflects the Veteran specifically denied swollen or painful joints; arthritis; and bone, joint or other deformity. The Veteran's post service treatment records are associated with his claims file. These records are silent as to any complaint, diagnosis, or treatment for a right hip disorder. To the contrary, a March 2019 record reflects the Veteran had no musculoskeletal symptoms, no muscle aches, no localized joint pain, no localized joint swelling, no limb pain, and no limb swelling. An April 2019 record reflects the Veteran presented to a clinic for follow-up of an ER visit for elevated blood sugars. As part of his overall assessment, review of his musculoskeletal system showed the Veteran had no musculoskeletal symptoms and his mobility was not limited. At the July 2021 Board hearing in this matter, the Veteran testified that he hurt his lower back early in his career; over time as he got older the pain started moving from his lower back over to the back side of my right hip; and he continues to have issues with the right hip, especially in the mornings. Upon review of the record, the Board finds that there is simply nothing in the record to document a current right hip disorder. The Board acknowledges the Veteran's report of a right hip disorder. In order to warrant service connection, the threshold requirement is competent evidence of the existence of the claimed disability at some point during a Veteran's appeal. See McClain, 21 Vet. App. 319; Degmetich, 104 F.3d 1328; Brammer, 3 Vet. App. 223. In this case, while the Veteran is competent as a layperson to testify to symptoms he experiences, he has not demonstrated that he has the necessary skills, experience, or medical knowledge to diagnose a right hip disorder; this is a complex medical question. Consequently, the Board concludes that the Veteran's statements and opinions as to diagnosis and etiology are of little probative value. See Jandreau, 492 F.3d 1372. Even in light of Saunders, the Board finds that the Veteran does not have a current right hip disorder as the evidence of record does not indicate the Veteran's claimed right hip disorder has caused functional impairment of earning capacity. Because the competent evidence of record does not establish that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of a right hip disorder, the claim must be denied. Caroline B. Fleming Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Jiggetts, Tenisha 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.