Citation Nr: 21005707 Decision Date: 02/02/21 Archive Date: 02/02/21 DOCKET NO. 18-31 906 DATE: February 2, 2021 ORDER New and material evidence has not been presented, and reopening the claim of entitlement to compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for varicose veins, thrombosis, and peripheral vascular disease of the bilateral lower extremities, secondary to scrapping of veins is denied. FINDING OF FACT 1. In an unappealed May 2006 rating decision, the Veteran was denied entitlement to compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for varicose veins, thrombosis, and peripheral vascular disease of the bilateral lower extremities, secondary to scrapping of veins. 2. The evidence associated with the record subsequent to the May 2006 rating decision is cumulative or redundant of the evidence previously of record, or does not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim of entitlement to compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for varicose veins, thrombosis, and peripheral vascular disease of the bilateral lower extremities, secondary to scrapping of veins. CONCLUSION OF LAW New and material evidence has not been received sufficient to reopen a claim of entitlement to compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for varicose veins, thrombosis, and peripheral vascular disease of the bilateral lower extremities, secondary to scrapping of veins. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2018); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from February 1974 to February 1976. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2012 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in December 2020. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims file. New and Material Evidence – Compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 In a May 2006 rating decision, the Veteran was denied entitlement to compensation for varicose veins, thrombosis, and peripheral vascular disease of the bilateral lower extremities secondary to scrapping of veins based on a finding that VA medical or educational services were the proximate cause of the additional disability, and the records submitted did not show that there was carelessness or neglect in offering VA treatment. The Veteran did not appeal that decision. The evidence that has been added to the record since the May 2006 rating decision includes the physician’s report from a June 1986 varicose veins ligation and stripping surgery; VA Medical Center records showing current treatment for deep vein thrombosis and peripheral vascular disease of the bilateral lower extremities; and private treatment records showing treatment for varicose veins. The Board finds that the additional evidence added to the record is not new and material. In this regard, the Veteran has not submitted evidence that tends to indicate that there is additional disability resulting from VA care that was the result of carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, or similar instance of fault on the part of VA; or, that the additional disability was due to an event not reasonably foreseeable. The medical treatment notes added to the record indicating that the Veteran currently has varicose veins, deep vein thrombosis, and peripheral vascular disease of the bilateral lower extremities are cumulative and redundant of those previously considered by VA in the May 2006 rating decision. As such, the Board finds that reopening the claim of entitlement to compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for varicose veins, thrombosis, and peripheral vascular disease of the bilateral lower extremities secondary to scrapping of veins is not warranted. As the Veteran has not fulfilled his threshold burden of submitting new and material evidence to reopen the finally disallowed claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not applicable. Annoni v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 463 (1993). Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board I. Umez-Eronini, 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.