Citation Nr: 21005434 Decision Date: 02/01/21 Archive Date: 02/01/21 DOCKET NO. 18-36 734 DATE: February 1, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a left hip condition, for substitution purposes, is denied. Service connection for a left knee condition, for substitution purposes, is denied. Service connection for a left shoulder condition, for substitution, is denied. Service connection for a COPD/shortness of breath condition, for substitution purposes, is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. It is less likely than not, that the Veteran’s left hip condition was related to or otherwise caused by his active military service. 2. It is less likely than not, that the Veteran’s left knee condition was related to or otherwise caused by his active military service. 3. The Veteran did not have a diagnosis for a left shoulder condition. 4. The Veteran did not have a diagnosis for a COPD/shortness of breath condition. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a left hip condition, for substitution purposes, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5121A; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307(a)(3), 3.309(a). 2. The criteria for service connection for a left knee condition, for substitution purposes, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5121A; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307(a)(3), 3.309(a). 3. The criteria for service connection for a left shoulder condition, for substitution purposes, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5121A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. 4. The criteria for service connection for a COPD/shortness of breath condition, for substitution purposes, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5121A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps from June 1955 to May 1959. Unfortunately, he passed away in February 2019. The appellant is the Veteran’s surviving spouse. In June 2020, the RO granted the appellant’s request to be substituted as claimant in place of the Veteran. See 38 U.S. C. § 5121A. Service Connection Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (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. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may also be established with certain chronic diseases, based upon a legal presumption, which occurs by showing that the disorder manifested itself to a degree of 10 percent disabling or more within one year from the date of separation from service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(3), 3.309(a). Additionally, service connection may be established under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b), when a symptom or symptoms of a chronic disease are noted in service, or within a year of the date of separation from service, and when chronicity is established through a continuity of symptomatology after service. The continuity of symptomatology provision is an alternative method to establishing service connection for the specific chronic diseases listed under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a). See Walker v. Shinseki, 718 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Left Hip and Left Knee The Veteran and the appellant asserted that service connection is warranted for both a left hip condition and a left knee condition. In the Veteran’s August 2015 Notice of Disagreement (NOD), the Veteran reported that he believed his left hip and left knee conditions were related to his service. He explained that on one occasion when he was climbing down the side of a ship to get on a landing craft, the ship was moving so much because of the tide that he ended up falling onto the landing craft. He denied going to sick call after the incident, but reported that the conditions had persisted since he was in the service. Additionally, the Veteran submitted a statement in October 2015, in which he relayed that the incident occurred approximately in October 1958, and that it had resulted in a problem with his left arm. He stated that his left leg was now affected. A review of the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) does not reflect any diagnoses for any left hip conditions or any left knee conditions. Nor do they show any complaints or treatments that may be related to a left hip condition or a left knee condition. They do provide that the Veteran was seen in October 1958 with complaints of pain, swelling, and redness of the left elbow. He was diagnosed with cellulitis of the left elbow. The record specifically notes that there was no history of antecedent trauma. He was kept in the holding ward for two days and treated with hot soaks, PBZ, and erythromycin, during which time the cellulitis greatly subsided. In additional copies of these records submitted by the Veteran, asterisks are placed next to the October 1958 entries pertaining to the left elbow inflammation and infection. However, inflammation and infection of a left elbow, does not suggest a relationship to a left hip condition or a left knee condition. Also, the record specifically notes that there is no antecedent trauma pertaining to the left elbow cellulitis that may be construed to relate to a left hip condition or a left knee condition. A review of the Veteran’s private treatment records reflects left hip X-rays from May 2009 and January 2014 that show mild osteoarthritis, as well as a left knee X-ray from January 2014 that shows mild osteoarthritis. In addition, the Veteran was seen in June 2009 for lower back pain, with a new onset of numbness and tingling in the left lower extremity. In December 2013, he was seen for left leg pain, and was noted to have left leg sciatica symptoms. While the Veteran’s private treatment records do show that the Veteran was diagnosed with osteoarthritis of both his left hip and left knee, and that he was treated for symptoms of left leg sciatica, they do not in any way show or suggest that the Veteran’s left hip and knee conditions may have been related to his active military service. There were no medical opinions within the Veteran’s private treatment records linking either his left hip condition or left knee condition to his active military service. Additionally, it was not until May 2009, that the Veteran was shown to have osteoarthritis of his left knee, and it was in January 2014 that he was shown to have osteoarthritis of his left hip. This is fifty plus years after the Veteran separated from active military service. A review of the Veteran’s VA treatment records does not provide any further information pertaining to the treatment of or etiology of a left hip condition or a left knee condition. Consideration is given to both the Veteran’s and appellant’s contentions, that the claimed left knee and left hip conditions were incurred in or caused by the Veteran’s military service. While lay persons are competent to provide opinions pertaining to certain medical issues, the etiology of a left hip condition and a left knee condition, as is specific to this case, is outside the realm of common knowledge for someone, such as the Veteran or the appellant, who do not possess medical training, specialized expertise, or experience. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492. F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As such, both the Veteran’s and the appellant’s assertions lack probative value pertaining to the etiology of the Veteran’s left hip condition and left knee condition. Here, even accepting an injury in service, as described by the Veteran, there is no statement from a medical professional even suggesting that such a fall may have caused any residual disability. Accordingly, service connection for both a left hip condition and a left knee condition, for substitution purposes, are denied. Left Shoulder and COPD/Shortness of Breath The Veteran and the appellant asserted that service connection is warranted for both a left shoulder condition and for a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)/shortness of breath condition due to exposure to asbestos. As relayed above, in the Veteran’s August 2015 NOD, the Veteran reported that he believed his left shoulder condition and his COPD/shortness of breath condition were related to his active military service. As to his left shoulder, he relayed the same incident pertaining to falling onto a landing craft boat. As to COPD/shortness of breath, he believed that it was due to exposure to asbestos while in the service and on ships. A review of the evidence of record, to include STRs and post-service medical treatment records, does not show the Veteran to have had a diagnosis for either a left shoulder condition or for a COPD/shortness of breath condition. Nor do they show any complaints or treatments that may have been related to either a left shoulder condition or a COPD/shortness of breath condition. Pertaining to the Veteran’s claimed left shoulder condition, the Board notes the October 1958 entries in the Veteran’s STRs relating to cellulitis of the left elbow, however, as explained above inflammation and infection of a left elbow, does not suggest a relationship to a left shoulder condition. Additionally, the record specifically notes that there was no antecedent trauma pertaining to the left elbow cellulitis that may be construed to relate to a left shoulder condition. The threshold requirement for granting service connection is evidence of a current disability. In the absence of evidence of a current disability, such as in this instance diagnoses of a left shoulder condition and a COPD/shortness of breath condition, there can be no valid claim. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). The requirement with a claim for service connection of a current disability “is satisfied when a claimant has a disability at the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or during the pendency of that claim and that a claimant may be granted service connection even though the disability resolves prior to the Secretary’s adjudication of the claim.” See McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007). Consideration is given to both the Veteran’s and the appellant’s contentions, that the claimed conditions of a left shoulder condition and a COPD/shortness of breath condition were incurred in or caused by the Veteran’s military service. While lay persons are competent to provide opinions pertaining to certain medical issues, the diagnosis and etiology of a left shoulder condition and a COPD/shortness of breath condition, as is specific to this case, is outside the realm of common knowledge for someone, such as the Veteran and the appellant, who do not possess medical training, specialized expertise, or experience. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492. F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As such, both the Veteran’s and the appellant’s assertions that he had diagnoses for both a left shoulder condition and a COPD/shortness of breath condition lacks probative value. Therefore, based upon the evidence of record, the Veteran did not have current diagnosed disabilities for either a left shoulder condition or a COPD/shortness of breath condition that could have been attributed to his active military service. Accordingly, service connection for both a left shoulder condition and a COPD/shortness of breath condition, for substitution purposes, are denied. MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Lutgens-Staley, 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.