Citation Nr: 21015463 Decision Date: 03/17/21 Archive Date: 03/17/21 DOCKET NO. 12-27 134A DATE: March 17, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for left ankle arthritis/gout is denied. FINDING OF FACT A chronic left ankle disability was not shown in service or for many years thereafter and the most probative evidence is against a finding that the current left ankle disability is related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from May 1970 to January 1973. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a January 2010 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In May 2017, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of that hearing is of record. The case was last before the Board in September 2017 and has returned to the Board for further appellate review. 1. Entitlement to service connection for left ankle arthritis/gout The Veteran seeks service connection for a left ankle disability, which he asserts is related to an injury he suffered during service. During his May 2017 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he injured his ankle during basic training after he was pushed when someone fell down the stairs behind him. The Veteran also testified that he received treatment for his ankle multiple times after his initial injury. Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Generally, to prove service connection there must be: (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). Where a veteran served continuously for 90 days or more during active service and certain chronic diseases, including arthritis, become manifest to a degree of 10 percent within one year from date of termination of such service, such disease shall be presumed to have been incurred in service, even though there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service. This presumption is rebuttable by affirmative evidence to the contrary. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. Service treatment records reveal the Veteran was diagnosed with a left ankle sprain with mild edema in June 1970. A September 1970 x-ray did not reveal any significant abnormalities with the Veteran’s left ankle. There are no additional records of continuing complaints of or treatment for left ankle pain during the remainder of the Veteran’s active duty service. Moreover, the Veteran’s December 1972 separation examination was absent any documentation of a left ankle disability. Thereafter, the record shows no complaints of or treatment for left ankle pain until August 1990, at which time the Veteran sought treatment for pain in his left foot and ankle after an automobile accident. The Veteran underwent a VA examination in January 2010, during which he reported that he sought treatment for ankle pain during service and was given a brace. He also reported that the pain has persisted over the years and has become worse as he ages. The examiner noted that the Veteran had diagnoses of osteoarthritis and gout of the left ankle; however, he opined that the Veteran’s current left ankle condition was less likely than not due to his in-service complaints. The examiner explained that there is no indication that the Veteran suffered a severe injury to his left ankle during service and no indication of chronic pain during service. There is no competent medical opinion to the contrary. To the extent the Veteran contends that he has suffered from left ankle symptoms since the in-service injury, the Board finds the contemporaneous service treatment records showing no complaints or treatment for his left ankle during the remainder of his service or for several years thereafter to be more probative than the assertions made for purposes of seeking compensation. Indeed, a May 2009 VA treatment record reveals the Veteran reported pain in his knees and ankles since 1989, suggesting a lack of continuity of symptoms for at least 15 years following discharge from service. See AZ v. Shinseki, 731 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (recognizing the widely held view that the absence of an entry in a record may be considered evidence that the fact did not occur if it appears that the fact would have been recorded if present); see also Cartright v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 24, 25 (1991) (VA cannot ignore a veteran’s testimony simply because the veteran is an interested party; personal interest may, however, affect the credibility of the evidence). To the extent the Veteran believes that his current left ankle disability is related to service, as a lay person, he has not shown that he has specialized training sufficient to render such an opinion. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In this regard, the diagnosis and etiology of ankle disabilities are matters not capable of lay observation and require medical expertise to determine. Thus, the opinion of the Veteran regarding the onset and etiology of his current left ankle disability is not competent medical evidence. The Board acknowledges the lay statements of record which describe the Veteran’s difficulties related to his left ankle pain. However, the statements do not address symptoms during service or during the year following service; thus, they are of no probative value concerning the question of a nexus between the Veteran’s current disability and service. In sum, the preponderance of the most probative evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran’s left ankle disability is related to service, and the claim is denied. In reaching the above conclusion, the Board considered the doctrine of reasonable doubt; however, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the doctrine is not for application. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 56 (1990). K. A. BANFIELD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Lance, 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.