Citation Nr: 21010907 Decision Date: 02/26/21 Archive Date: 02/26/21 DOCKET NO. 14-39 245 DATE: February 26, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for left foot heloma molle is granted. Entitlement to service connection for right foot heloma molle is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran’s left foot heloma molle is etiologically related to service. 2. The Veteran’s right foot heloma molle is etiologically related to service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for left foot heloma molle have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for right foot heloma molle have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from November 1977 to March 1978 and from June 1979 to March 1981. He appeals a July 2014 rating decision denying entitlement to service connection for bilateral heloma molle of the feet. In October 2018, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is of record. Service Connection Under the relevant laws and regulations, service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a), 3.304, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310. Generally, the evidence must show: (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, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 505 (1995). 1. Entitlement to service connection for left foot heloma molle. 2. Entitlement to service connection for right foot heloma molle. The Veteran contends that his left and right foot heloma mole disabilities are related to active service. After review of the evidence, the Board finds that service connection is warranted. The Veteran asserts that he developed growths during basic training at the interspace of his 4th and 5th toes of both feet. He was treated with an ointment that did not resolve the problem. After basic training, the problem persisted, and he was again given an ointment after visiting the aid station. However, review of his service treatment records does not show treatment for any foot condition at any time during active service. In fact, he reported normal feet during every active service medical examination. The Veteran argues that he thought the problem was normal and did not want to cause any problems with regard to separation from service. The Veteran contends that he began further treatment for the condition immediately after service. However, the first such treatment is not found in the medical records until December 2002. Review of the evidence does show that the Veteran has been continuously treated for the condition on appeal from December 2002 to the present. The Veteran submitted an October 2015 positive nexus opinion from a VA clinician indicating a link between the his bilateral heloma molle and active service. During a post-operative checkup, the clinician reported that it is more likely than not that the Veteran’s military boots are responsible for causing his toe problems on the right foot. The clinician made no mention of the condition on the Veteran’s left foot. However, as the opinion was rendered during an examination specific to the Veteran’s right foot post-surgery, it is unclear whether the clinician even considered the Veteran’s left toe condition. No further reasoning was provided in support of the clinician’s conclusion. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in December 2019. The Veteran reported that he started having foot pain during the military and it has persisted since. The examiner confirmed the diagnosis of bilateral heloma molle of the feet. After examination of the Veteran, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s bilateral heloma molle of the feet is less likely as not proximately due to or the result of the Veteran’s service-connected condition. However, the examiner did not supply any rationale for the opinion other than a note that service treatment records were silent regarding treatment for heloma molle. As such, the Board affords minimal probative weight to the VA examiner’s opinion. The Board affords more probative weight to the Veteran’s statements and the October 2015 medical opinion than that of the December 2019 VA examiner. The October 2015 medical opinion, although conclusory, suggests that the Veteran’s bilateral heloma molle is related to service, whereas the December 2019 medical opinion offers little to no evidentiary value. Although he is not qualified to render complex medical diagnoses, the Veteran is competent to testify to that which is actually observed and is within the realm of personal knowledge, such as pain and visible deformity. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vat. App. 465 (1994). In addition, the Veteran is competent to describe his ongoing symptoms and his statements are credible in that regard. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In conclusion, the Board finds that the evidence is at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s bilateral heloma molle is related to service. Accordingly, the Board resolves all doubt in the Veteran’s favor and the claim is granted. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 5557 (1990). 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. B.T. KNOPE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Daniel Ballinger, Associate Counsel