Citation Nr: 21014830 Decision Date: 03/15/21 Archive Date: 03/15/21 DOCKET NO. 19-37 918 DATE: March 15, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a left eye disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral pes planus is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran does not have a left eye disability that began during active service, was aggravated by service, or is otherwise related to an in-service event, injury or disease. 2. The Veteran’s pes planus pre-existed entry into service and were not aggravated as a result of service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a left eye disability have not been satisfied. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 2. The criteria for service connection for bilateral pes planus have not been satisfied. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.306. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from July 1961 to April 1965. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2018 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran timely appealed and requested a Board hearing. In January 2021, a hearing was held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. Generally, to establish service connection, a claimant must show: (1) a present disability; (2) an 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, the so-called “nexus” requirement. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; see also Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 1. Left Eye Disability The Veteran has a current left eye disability. See July 2019 VA Ophthalmology Examination. Thus, the remaining question is whether the current left eye disability is related to service. Service treatment records show one instance of a diagnosis for a left eye disability. At separation, the examiner noted the Veteran reported a left eye injury that occurred prior to service. See March 1965 Separation Examination. The examiner noted the pupil in the left eye was enlarged with decreased sensitivity to light. Id. The report stated that the Veteran was struck in the left eye with a cotton ball before entering service which resulted in hyphema. Id. The examiner noted the Veteran’s eyesight was still intact at 20/20 bilateral vision. Id. The Veteran denied having had any other eye trouble. The Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination in connection with his claim for service connection. Generally, a VA medical examination or opinion is necessary when there is (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability, (2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service, or establishing certain diseases manifesting during an applicable presumptive period for which the veteran qualifies, and (3) an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability may be associated with the Veteran’s service or with another service-connected disability, but (4) there is insufficient competent medical evidence on file for VA to make a decision on the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4)(i); see also McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 83 (2006). Here, there is no evidence of an event, injury, or disease occurring in service as there are no complaints related to any eye injuries. At the Veteran’s separation examination, when he was asked about his left eye, he informed the physician that he had a childhood incident with a cotton ball that occurred around 1955. See March 1965 Separation Examination. The treating physician then diagnosed hyphema resulting from the incident. There is no other complaint of eye trauma from the Veteran in the record. There is also no indication that the disability may be associated with the Veteran’s service or another service-connected injury. Private treatment records note that the Veteran had a history of left eye trauma as a child. See January 1998 Private Treatment Note. Private treatment records make no mention of any trauma endured during service to the Veteran’s left eye. Moreover, the Veteran testified his current eye problems are related to glaucoma rather than hyphema. Simply put, there is no competent evidence of record showing an in-service injury or suggesting the current glaucoma is related to service. A medical opinion is not necessary. The Board has considered the Veteran’s statements, to include his assertions that reading fine print as part of his official duties and being exposed to the brightness and heat from the sun on the flight line led to his left eye disability, and that his left eye had healed prior to entering service. As the Veteran is not shown to have medical education or experience, he is a lay person and is competent to report (1) symptoms that are observable to a layperson, e.g., diminished vision; (2) symptoms at the time supporting a later diagnosis by a medical professional; or (3) a contemporaneous medical diagnosis. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (2009). The Veteran is not competent to independently render a medical diagnosis or opine as to the specific etiology of a condition as these are medically complex issues. Thus, his lay assertions do not constitute evidence upon which service connection can be granted. For the above reasons, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim and service connection is denied. 2. Bilateral Pes Planus The Veteran had a pre-existing bilateral pes planus, or flat foot, disability. See July 1961 Enlistment Examination. The Veteran asserts that service aggravated his flat feet disability as he developed foot pain in service, which has continued to the present. See October 2018 Fully Developed Claim. The Veteran states that the leather boots he was required to wear during service caused his flat foot disability to worsen, causing pain as he had to perform his duties of walking distances of two to three miles per day to other administrative buildings and the flight line without insole support for his disability. The Veteran asserts this caused him constant pain and that he would soak his feet in water. See January 2021 Hearing Transcript. The Veteran also submitted a study on the effects of wearing different personal equipment on force distribution at the plantar surface of the foot in support of his claim. Generally, a veteran is presumed to be in sound condition, except for defects, infirmities or disorders noted when examined, accepted, and enrolled for service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1111, 1137; 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(b). Such conditions are considered to be pre-existing. When a pre-existing disorder is noted on entry, a veteran has the burden of showing that it is at least as likely as not that the disorder increased in severity during service. 38 U.S.C. § 1153; 38 C.F.R. § 3.306(a). If a veteran meets that burden and shows that an increase in severity occurred, the burden then shifts to VA to show whether such increase is clearly and unmistakably due to the natural progression of the pre-existing disability rather than due to service. Wagner v. Principi, 370 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Horn v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 231, 235 (2012); C.F.R. § 3.306(a). Aggravation may not be conceded where the disability underwent no increase in severity during service on the basis of all the evidence of record pertaining to the manifestations of the disability prior to, during, and subsequent to service. 38 U.S.C. § 1153; 38 C.F.R. § 3.306(b). As noted above, pes planus was identified on the Veteran’s entry into service. While the Veteran asserts he had significant foot pain during service, service treatment records do not document any complaints of foot pain. In any event, at separation from service the Veteran denied having had foot trouble or swollen or painful joints. Had the Veteran been experiencing significant foot pain, the Board would expect that he would have reported this at separation as he identified a history of other disorders and a reasonable person would have interpreted the questions about foot trouble and painful joints as encompassing symptoms of foot pain. Thus, the Board finds that even if the Veteran experienced foot pain during service, it was not significant enough to be reported or to represent an increase in disability as it relates to the pre-existing pes planus. Importantly, evaluation of the feet was normal during the separation examination. This is strong evidence against a finding that the pre-existing pes planus increased in severity as a result of service as the pes planus was not even detected by the examiner who not only interviewed the Veteran but also performed a foot evaluation. (Continued on the next page.) As the Veteran has not met his burden to show an increase in severity occurred as a result of service, there is no need to discuss whether there is clear and unmistakable evidence the an increase in severity was due solely to the natural progression of the pre-existing disability rather than due to service. Moreover, as the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the pre-existing pes planus increased in severity during service, service connection for pes planus is denied. Nathan Kroes Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Jarman, 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.