Citation Nr: 21011269 Decision Date: 03/01/21 Archive Date: 03/01/21 DOCKET NO. 15-45 162 DATE: March 1, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for low potassium as secondary to service-connected hypertension is denied. FINDING OF FACT Low potassium is a laboratory finding and not a disability for which compensation can be awarded. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for low potassium due to service-connected hypertension are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from September 1975 to September 1978, with additional service in the Army Reserve. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from an August 2015 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In a January 2019 written correspondence, the Veteran withdrew his request for a Board hearing and requested a decision be made on the evidence and arguments of record. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(e). In April 2019, the Board remanded this matter for further development to obtain a VA examination to determine whether the Veteran’s low potassium was a laboratory finding or a diagnosed disability. The Veteran asserts that his low potassium is the result of medication he takes to treat his service-connected hypertension. See August 2020 Appellant’s Brief; March 2019 Appellant’s Brief; March 2017 Appellant’s Brief; December 2015 VA Form 9. Because the Veteran has not raised, and the record does not reasonably raise, entitlement to direct service connection for low potassium, the Board’s adjudication will consider only entitlement to secondary service connection. Secondary service connection may be granted for a disability that is proximately due to, or aggravated by, service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. The Board notes that the Veteran is currently in receipt of service connection for hypertension. Thus, this case turns on whether low potassium is a diagnosed disability for VA compensation purposes. Under applicable regulation, the term “disability” means impairment in earning capacity resulting from diseases and injuries and their residual conditions. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1; see also Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995); Hunt v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 292, 296 (1991). Symptoms or clinical findings, such as laboratory findings, are not disabilities within the law. Absent evidence of a current disability, a claim for service connection must be denied. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). Here, the January 2020 VA examiner determined that the Veteran had manifested low potassium levels on laboratory tests that were the side-effect of a diuretic medication the Veteran took for his service-connected hypertension. The examiner noted that although the Veteran exhibited low potassium on clinical tests, these test results were clinical laboratory findings and not a specific disease or disorder. The examiner also indicated that the Veteran does not have a diagnosed endocrine condition. In addition, the examiner highlighted the Veteran’s statement that was not aware of any adverse effects from his low potassium levels, which is indicative of no functional impairment stemming from his laboratory findings. See, e.g., Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018). There is no other competent opinion of record addressing whether the Veteran’s low potassium levels constitute a specific disease or disorder as opposed to a laboratory finding. In this regard, the Veteran is not competent to determine whether his potassium deficiency represents a disability, as this determination requires medical expertise. Thus, a preponderance of the competent evidence of record establishes that the Veteran’s low potassium levels are a clinical laboratory finding and not a diagnosed disease or disorder. Thus, the first element of service connection, current disability, is not established, and the benefit sought on appeal is denied on this basis alone. S. BUSH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. deBruyn, 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.