Citation Nr: 21021418 Decision Date: 04/12/21 Archive Date: 04/12/21 DOCKET NO. 16-08 009 DATE: April 12, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a chronic left calf strain is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a chronic right calf strain is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a chronic left hamstring strain is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a heart disorder, claimed as sinus bradycardia, is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran does not have a chronic left calf strain. 2. The Veteran does not have a chronic right calf strain. 3. The Veteran does not have a chronic left hamstring strain. 4. The Veteran does not have a heart disorder. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a chronic left calf strain are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(b). 2. The criteria for service connection for a chronic right calf strain are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(b). 3. The criteria for service connection for a chronic left hamstring strain are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(b). 4. The criteria for service connection for a heart disorder, claimed as sinus bradycardia are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(b). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from September 1988 to May 1998. This appeal is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a June 2013 rating decision from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board notes, in February 2021, the Veteran withdrew his request for a Board hearing. As an initial matter, the Board notes that VA treatment records were added to the claims file after the most recent supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). Generally, when evidence is added to the claims file after the most recent statement of the case or SSOC that was not submitted by the Veteran or his representative, a remand to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for a new SSOC is required. However, 38 C.F.R. § 19.31(b)(1) provides that a SSOC should be issued when additional pertinent evidence is received, while 38 C.F.R. § 19.37(a) provides that a new SSOC is not required if evidence duplicates evidence in the file. Here, the VA treatment records entered into the claims file on May 28, 2020 do not represent pertinent evidence as the treatment records do not contain any complaints of, or treatment for, the Veteran’s claimed conditions and are thus also not relevant as they are duplicative of evidence previously considered by the AOJ. As such, a remand for a new SSOC to consider this evidence is not required and the Board will continue with the adjudication of the Veteran’s claims. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection requires: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) 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. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1995). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge when the evidence establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). For certain chronic diseases, a presumption of service connection arises if the disease is manifested to a degree of 10 percent within one year following discharge from service. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(3), 3.309(a). When a chronic disease is not shown to have manifested to a compensable degree within one year after service, under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) for the showing of chronic disease in service, there is required a combination of manifestations sufficient to identify the disease entity and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time. When the fact of chronicity in service is not adequately supported, a showing of continuity after discharge is required to support a claim for such diseases; however, such continuity of symptomatology may only support a claim for those chronic diseases listed under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a). 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b); see also Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In rendering a decision on appeal, the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of all medical and lay evidence of record, account for the evidence which it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive, and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 57 (1990). Competency of evidence differs from weight and credibility. Competency is a legal concept determining whether testimony may be heard and considered by the trier of fact, while credibility is a factual determination going to the probative value of the evidence to be made after the evidence has been admitted. Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 67, 74 (1997); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994); see also Cartright v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 24, 25 (1991) (“although interest may affect the credibility of testimony, it does not affect competency to testify”). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Board must resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. 49. To deny a claim on its merits, the evidence must preponderate against the claim. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518 (1996). The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. See, e.g., Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328 (1997). Congress specifically limited entitlement to service connection for a disease or injury where such instances have resulted in a disability. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131. Hence, where the evidence does not support a finding of a current disability of pulmonary interstitial fibrosis upon which to predicate the grant of service connection, there can be no valid claim for this benefit. See Gilpin v. Brown, 155 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). 1. Chronic Left Calf Strain 2. Chronic Right Calf Strain 3. Chronic Left Hamstring Strain 4. Heart Disorder The Veteran seeks entitlement to service connection for chronic left and right calf strains, a chronic left hamstring strain, and for a heart disorder claimed as sinus bradycardia. Turning to the evidence of record, the service treatment records (STRs) indicate that in September 1988 he received treatment for a right hamstring pull. In August 1991 a STR indicates he had sinus bradycardia. In May 1993 he received treatment for a left hamstring pull and also for sore hamstrings on both legs. In October 1993, a heart x-ray determined his heart was within normal limits. In May 1994 the Veteran underwent a right knee arthroscopy and a partial lateral meniscectomy. In March 1996 he underwent surgery for a left achilles tendon rupture. In his April 1998 report of medical history form, the Veteran reported experiencing pain in both knees, cramps in his legs, and soreness from his achilles surgery. An undated nursing history and assessment form indicates the Veteran reported that as a child he was diagnosed with a heart murmur. A November 2004 VA treatment record indicates the Veteran sought treatment for swelling of both legs that occurred when standing or walking. In October 2012 the Veteran underwent a VA knee and lower leg examination report which included a review of the claims file, a recitation of complaints and medical history, and physical examination results. The report determined he had patellofemoral pain syndrome of the right knee and mild arthritis of the left knee. No other lower extremity disabilities were noted for either leg. An October 2014 VA treatment record’s review of symptoms indicates his heart was, “regular, no Murmurs/Rubs/Gallops, no carotid bruits, no LE edema.” In December 2014, VA treatment records indicate he underwent physical therapy for bilateral knee pain. After a review of the claims file in conjunction with the applicable laws and regulations, the Board finds the preponderance of the evidence is against finding the Veteran has a currently diagnosed (1) chronic left calf strain, (2) chronic right calf strain, (3) chronic left hamstring strain, or (4) a heart disorder claimed as sinus bradycardia at any point during the appeal period. As an initial matter, although the Veteran claims multiple chronic disabilities, none of the alleged chronic disabilities are eligible for presumptive service connection as they are not listed under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309. As to direct service connection and as previously stated, the existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. See, e.g., Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328 (1997). Here, as to his alleged chronic left and right calf strains and chronic left hamstring strain, the Board acknowledges his September 1988 and May 1993 in-service hamstring injuries; however, his separation medical examination determined his bilateral lower extremities were clinically normal. Moreover, although in his April 1998 medical history form he reported leg pain, the statement from the Veteran within that form indicates his leg pain is from his in-service and service-connected left achilles and right knee meniscectomy injuries. Furthermore, the Board acknowledges his October 2012 VA examinations diagnosis of patellofemoral pain syndrome of the right knee and mild arthritis of the left knee; however, he is already service connected for both disabilities. Additionally, the evidence of record does not contain any competent or credible medical evidence indicating the Veteran has continued to experience or has experienced at any point during the applicable appeal period, a chronic left and right calf strain, and a chronic left hamstring strain. Indeed, the evidence of record does not contain a single treatment record, or a complaint related to his calf or hamstring on either leg. As to his heart disorder claimed as sinus bradycardia, the Board acknowledges the in-service clinical finding in August 1991 of sinus bradycardia; however, the presence of sinus bradycardia is essentially a clinical finding, and not a "disability" as used for VA purposes. See Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995). Indeed, an October 1993 heart x-ray determined his heart was within normal limits and his heart was determined to be clinically normal upon separation from service. Furthermore, the evidence of record does not contain any competent or credible medical evidence indicating the Veteran has continued to experience or has experienced sinus bradycardia, or any other heart disability at any point during the applicable appeal period. Indeed, the evidence of record does not contain a single treatment record or complaint related to a heart disorder. Lastly, the only evidence supporting a diagnosis of any of the Veteran’s claimed disabilities, are his own bare claims of entitlement. Lay evidence may be competent to establish medical etiology or nexus (Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009)), but VA can give lay evidence whatever weight to which it concludes the evidence is entitled. Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In this case, although the Veteran may believe he suffers from chronic left and right calf strains, a chronic left hamstring strain, and heart disorder claimed as sinus bradycardia, he is not competent to make such determinations, which are medical in nature. See Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1372. Such opinions require specialized training and knowledge and are matters which are not capable of lay observation. As such, the Board finds the Veteran’s contentions are of little probative value. Based on the overall and highly probative evidence discussed above, the Board finds there is no evidence of a current diagnosis of (1) a chronic left calf strain, (2) a chronic right calf strain, (3) a chronic left hamstring strain, or (4) a heart disorder at any point during the applicable appeal period. In reaching the conclusions above, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. However, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the claims, that doctrine is not applicable in the instant appeal. Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. 49; 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7. Accordingly, because the first element of service connection, i.e., a current disability, has not been met, service connection for (1) a chronic left calf strain, (2) a chronic right calf strain, (3) a chronic left hamstring strain, and (4) a heart disorder claimed as sinus bradycardia, must all be denied. JONATHAN B. KRAMER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Law Clerk, Tyler R. Masters 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.