Citation Nr: 21014923 Decision Date: 03/16/21 Archive Date: 03/16/21 DOCKET NO. 14-41 865 DATE: March 16, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for diabetic peripheral neuropathy, other than left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has had diabetic peripheral neuropathy, other than left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy, at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for diabetic peripheral neuropathy, other than left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy, due to service or type II diabetes mellitus are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 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 February 1968 to January 1970, to include service in the Republic of Vietnam. In April 2020, the Board remanded the matter to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for additional development and it has since returned for further appellate review. Regarding the left lower extremity, the Board notes that in a January 2016 rating decision, the AOJ awarded service connection for diabetic peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Veteran’s appeal as to the issue of service connection for diabetic peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity has been rendered moot because the benefits sought on appeal have been granted in full. See Seri v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 441, 447 (2007); see also Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Regarding the Veteran’s right lower extremity and bilateral upper extremities, the Board finds that the evidence does not support a separate grant of service connection. The Veteran presented for a VA examination in November 2015, January 2017, and October 2020. During each of these examinations, the findings did not show diabetic peripheral neuropathy of the right lower extremity or bilateral upper extremity. The only diagnosis or abnormal findings shown were related to the left lower extremity diabetic peripheral neuropathy. After interviewing the Veteran and reviewing the pertinent medical history and performing an examination, the October 2020 examiner found that the Veteran did not have a diagnosis for right lower extremity or bilateral upper extremity peripheral neuropathy. The examiner opined that the Veteran only has a left lower extremity diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Notably, in all of the examinations, evaluation of the right lower extremity and bilateral upper extremity was normal. The Board finds these opinions highly probative as they were made by a medical professional with consideration of the specific facts in this case and after examination of the Veteran. The opinions are also supported by other evidence of record. An electromyography (EMG) test held in September 2020 showed normal findings for the right lower extremity. The Board acknowledges the May 2020 VA treatment note indicating that the Veteran has developed neuropathy in both legs which are probably at least partially related to his diabetes. However, the Board gives less probative weight to this medical note as the treatment provider does not provide a rationale to support its conclusion. On the other hand, the Board gives more probative weight to the VA examinations, and of note, the October 2020 examination which was conducted after reviewing the pertinent records and performing an examination. Upon the conclusion of the latter examination, the examiner opined that the Veteran did not have a diagnosis for a right lower extremity peripheral neuropathy. For the above reasons, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim and separate service connection for right lower extremity and bilateral upper extremity peripheral neuropathy is denied. Eric Mine Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Mathew 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.