Citation Nr: 21006340 Decision Date: 02/03/21 Archive Date: 02/03/21 DOCKET NO. 07-10 047 DATE: February 3, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, other than posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), to include as secondary to service-connected disabilities, is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The record does not include an adequate medical nexus linking the Veteran’s right ankle disability to the Veteran’s military service. 2. The record does not include an adequate medical nexus linking the Veteran’s left ankle disability to the Veteran’s military service. 3. The record does not include an adequate medical nexus linking the Veteran’s right foot disability to the Veteran’s military service. 4. The record does not include an adequate medical nexus linking the Veteran’s left foot disability to the Veteran’s military service. 5. The record does not include an adequate medical nexus linking the Veteran’s psychiatric disability to the Veteran’s military service or to service-connected disabilities. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for right ankle disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.655(b). 2. The criteria for service connection for a left ankle disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.655(b). 3. The criteria for service connection for a right foot disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.655(b). 4. The criteria for service connection for a left foot disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.655(b). 5. The criteria for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, other than PTSD, to include as secondary to service-connected disabilities, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.655(b), 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active duty from September 1972 to September 1975 and from December 1975 to April 1979. In April 2011, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A hearing transcript is associated with the record. In August 2011, April 2017 and January 2018 September 2019, the Board remanded the issues on appeal for additional development and the matters are now before the Board once again. These matters originally came before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Montgomery, Alabama. Service Connection 1. Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability 2. Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability 3. Entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability 4. Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability 5. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, other than PTSD, to include as secondary to service-connected disabilities The Veteran contends that his feet and ankle disabilities are due to his military service. Specifically, he contends that the conditions were caused by injury sustained from general exertion during active duty and cold weather training. In terms of his psychiatric disability, the Veteran contends that his psychiatric disability is due to a 1978 motor vehicle accident or, in the alternative, secondary to his service-connected disabilities. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 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. The Board concludes that the Veteran has current diagnoses of the feet and ankles. A March 2012 examination notes mild to moderate osteoarthritis of the interphalangeal joints and hallux valgus of the feet. The March 2012 examination also notes degenerative joint disease of both ankles. The Veteran contends that general exertion during training and cold weather training caused his foot and ankle disabilities. The Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran’s ankle and foot disabilities began during service or are otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. In addition, the Board concludes that the Veteran has current diagnosis of a current psychiatric disability. The March 2012 examiner diagnosed the Veteran with a depressive disorder. The Veteran contends that his psychiatric disability is due to a 1978 motor vehicle accident or, in the alternative, secondary to his service-connected disabilities. The Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran’s psychiatric disability began during service or are otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. In August 2011, the Board remanded the issues in this case and directed that the Veteran be afforded examinations. Examinations conducted in 2012 were inadequate. The Board again remanded the issues on appeal for addendum opinions as to whether they were related to the Veteran’s military service. The Board found that the June 2017 opinions to be inadequate. In January 2018, the Board again remanded the issues on appeal for examinations and opinions. The Veteran failed to appear in May 2018 scheduled examinations. In September 2019, the Board again remanded the case for examinations because the RO had failed to consider the Veteran’s May 2018 statement regarding a fall and enduring injuries from the fall when determining whether good cause had been shown for missing examinations. Examinations were again scheduled for the Veteran in December 2019, and the Veteran did not show for the examinations. Several documents mailed to the Veteran have been returned as undeliverable in recent months. VA has tried to contact the Veteran regarding a current mailing address. The Veteran provided an address to VA in July 2020, but all mail sent to this address has been returned. VA even reached out to the Veteran’s bank to ask for his current address, but no current address has been found. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has stated that the duty to assist is not a one-way street. If a veteran wishes help in developing his claim, he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where he may or should have information that is essential in obtaining putative evidence. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). Furthermore, when a claimant fails to report for an examination scheduled in conjunction with an original service connection claim, regulations provide that the claim will be decided on the evidence of record. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b) (2010). Given the Veteran’s choice not to submit to a VA examination, the Board finds that no further action is necessary to meet the requirements of the VCAA. Wood, 1 Vet. App. at 193; see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b). As this case is an original service connection claim, regulations provide that the claim will be decided on the evidence of record. (Continued on the next page)   Although, the Veteran has current disabilities, no adequate nexus opinions have been obtained. The only nexus opinions obtained have not been favorable to the Veteran and have been inadequate. See April 2012 opinions, May 2017 opinion, June 2017 opinions. The Board has tried to obtain an opinion for each issue in this case, but the Veteran did not appear to the recent examinations. The Veteran believes his feet and ankle disabilities and his psychiatric disability are related to an in-service injury, event, or disease or secondary to service-connected disabilities. The Veteran in this case is not competent to provide a nexus opinion regarding these issues. The issues are medically complex. Therefore, it is outside the competence of the Veteran in this case because the record does not show that he has the medical training or credentials 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). Consequently, without an adequate nexus opinion, the claims must be denied. KRISTI L. GUNN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Tahirih S. Samadani, 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.