Citation Nr: 21021199 Decision Date: 04/12/21 Archive Date: 04/12/21 DOCKET NO. 17-13 532 DATE: April 12, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for hepatitis B and/or hepatitis C is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has had hepatitis B or hepatitis C at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim; there is no current disability. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for hepatitis B and/or hepatitis C are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from February 1963 to February 1967. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2016 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This matter was previously before the Board in September 2019, when it was remanded for an examination and medical opinion. Entitlement to service connection for hepatitis B and/or hepatitis C The Veteran contends that service connection is warranted for hepatitis due to in-service air gun vaccination. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (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). The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of hepatitis B or hepatitis C and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). A June 2002 letter from a private blood center (submitted to VA in September 2016) noted that the Veteran had tried to donate blood in May 2002. According to the letter, routine testing on that blood “discovered a positive test result for antibody to the hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc) . . . The presence of the antibody may mean you had hepatitis B in the past, perhaps without symptoms, and recovered.” An October 2012 private emergency department record and December 2012 private primary care record listed hepatitis B in their past medical history sections but did not include any test results. A December 2017 VA medical opinion reviewed the claims file and determined that “The [V]eteran does not have hepatitis B. [The] Veteran has tested positive for hepatitis B core antibody with [sic] simply means at some point in the past the [V]eteran has been exposed to hepatitis B.” A December 2019 VA examination reviewed lab work associated with that examination and noted that the Veteran’s “All Hep[atitis] B panel was neg[ative]. No evidence of current or past infection.” The VA examination determined that there were “no findings, signs and or symptoms to support a diagnosis” of hepatitis B. The same clinician repeated this finding in a December 2019 VA medical opinion, stating that the Veteran “does not have Hep[atitis] B as demonstrated by lab work on 12/2/19. All Hep[atitis] B panel was neg[ative]. No evidence of current or past infection.” Although the Veteran believes he has a current diagnosis of hepatitis B, he had not demonstrated the competency to provide a diagnosis in this case. The issue is medically complex, requiring specialized medical education and the ability to interpret complicated diagnostic medical testing results. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Additionally, the Board notes that the June 2002 letter from a private blood center which informed the Veteran of his positive antibody test observed that “The presence of the antibody may mean you had hepatitis B in the past, perhaps without symptoms, and recovered” (emphasis added). Considered with the VA examination and medical opinions that found no hepatitis B, the Board has determined that the Veteran has not had hepatitis B at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim. As to hepatitis C, although the Veteran initially requested service connection for hepatitis C in his June 2016 claim, the Veteran later indicated in a January 2017 statement that “Hepatitis B is the type I have, previous statement claiming Hepatitis C are incorrect.” Lab work conducted with the December 2019 VA examination determined that the hepatitis C viral titers were “normal.” The VA examination remarked that there were “no findings, signs and or symptoms to support a diagnosis” of hepatitis C. Based on the medical records prior to and following the Veteran’s claim as well as his January 2017 statement, the Board finds that the Veteran has not had hepatitis C prior to or during the pendency of the claim. Because there is no current disability, the Board finds that service connection for hepatitis B or hepatitis C is not warranted. WILLIAM H. DONNELLY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board W. Ripplinger, 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.