Citation Nr: 21021641 Decision Date: 04/13/21 Archive Date: 04/13/21 DOCKET NO. 19-16 493 DATE: April 13, 2021 ORDER Service connection for residuals of frostbite is denied. FINDING OF FACT The weight of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran had frostbite in service, and does not show a current disability related to frostbite. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a frostbite disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from February 1955 to February 1958. This case is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2017 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) rating decision. In that rating decision, the RO denied entitlement to service connection for bilateral frostbite in the hands, and noted that the claim had previously been denied in a September 2017 rating decision after which the Veteran requested that the claim be reconsidered. The Veteran’s notice of disagreement (NOD) was received in January 2018. The RO issued the statement of the case (SOC) in May 2019, and the Veteran’s VA Form 9, substantive appeal was received in June 2019. In September 2019, the Board remanded the case for further development. Service Connection Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military, naval or air service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of three things: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship, i.e., a nexus, between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Entitlement to service connection for a frostbite disability The Veteran seeks service connection for a frostbite disability. Specifically, he asserts that he had frostbite during service which affected the feet and the hands, and he currently has residuals of in-service frostbite. See, e.g. Supplemental Claim dated January 2017; January 2018 NOD; June 2019 VA Form 9. Service Treatment Records (STRs) are silent for any indication of frostbite during service. This includes a November 1957 relief from active duty examination, which shows normal skin and upper and lower extremities. Additionally, there is no indication of a disability or disease, in service, which may be frostbite-related. Post-service VA treatment records are silent as to any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of frostbite or frostbite residuals. The only mention of “frostbite” in the VA medical records is in a February 2020 VA social work note showing that the Veteran had “no needs voiced other than [for] some type [of] paper work about frost bite on feet in service. [He w]ants a letter stating that is why he falls[.]” Private treatment records are silent as to any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of frostbite or frostbite residuals. In an October 2017 buddy statement, a former spouse reported that the Veteran contracted frostbite while stationed in Germany. She reported that “years ago he complained about his hands and feet, now he [doesn’t] have full use of his hands.” In a January 2018 buddy statement, an associate of the Veteran stated that the Veteran had “medical problems with his hand[s] and feet due to frost bite,” which has since worsened and caused limited range of motion in his hands and feet. In an August 2020 Statement in Support of Claim, the Veteran reported that he suffers from current disabilities of the hands and fingers, including “signs and symptoms typical of exposure to cold temperatures.” In support of his statement, he attached medical literature related to various cold weather-related conditions including frostnip, frostbite, and hypothermia. While the Board has considered with sympathy the Veteran’s and other lay statements, it cannot afford probative weight to his assertions with respect to the etiology of a current disability related to frostbite in this case. While the Veteran is competent to report in-service cold weather exposure, and any symptoms experienced in its wake, he is not competent to provide a nexus opinion with respect to any current disability associated with cold-weather exposure. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F. 3d 1372 (2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F. 3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Veteran’s reports of his symptoms are relevant, competent, and credible; however, the question of the etiology of a current disability related to a remote history of cold-weather exposure is limited to the purview of someone with medical knowledge and training, such as the VA medical examiner in this case. Moreover, the medical evidence, including STRs, private treatment records, and VA treatment records, is silent for any evidence that the Veteran has, at any time, complained of, reported [to any medical provider], or been treated for frostbite or residuals of frostbite. Even assuming the Veteran did suffer frostbite in service, there is no diagnosed disability of any condition related to frostbite in the record during the period on appeal. In sum, the STRs, to include a November 1957 relief from active duty examination report, are silent for any indication that the Veteran had frostbite in service. Further, the record is silent for competent evidence indicating that the Veteran has any current disability which is in any way related to frostbite, specifically frostbite which the Veteran asserts was incurred over six decades ago. In addition, the Board acknowledges that VA has a duty to assist the Veteran in the development of the claim. This duty includes assisting him in the procurement of service treatment records and pertinent treatment records and providing an examination when necessary. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. In that regard, the claim was remanded in September 2019 to obtain all outstanding VA medical records, and to allow the Veteran to identify any outstanding private treatment records. Pursuant to the directives of that Board remand, the Veteran’s VA treatment records, to the present, were associated with the file. Additionally, VA notified the Veteran that if he identified his private medical providers, VA would contact each provider to obtain those records. See November 2019 Subsequent Development Letter. Thereafter, private treatment records were associated with the file. Additionally, a December 2019 letter to the Veteran reflects that VA provided the Veteran with a VA Form 21-4142, Authorization to Disclose Information to VA, and a VA Form 21-4142a, General Release for Medical Provider Information to VA. However, that letter also shows that the Veteran did not respond to VA’s outreach efforts, and thus further records could not be located. In light of VA’s development efforts subsequent to the prior Board remand directives, VA has satisfied the duty to assist. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. Finally, the Veteran was not afforded a VA examination, and no VA medical opinion has otherwise been obtained, with regard to the matter at hand. However, and as discussed above, the evidence gives no indication that the Veteran has a currently diagnosed disability related to frostbite or its residuals. Accordingly, a VA examination is not necessary. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006) (discussing when VA’s duty to provide an examination or obtain a medical opinion is triggered). In light of the foregoing, the weight of the evidence is against finding that the elements of the service connection claim are met. There is no reasonable doubt to resolve in the Veteran’s favor, and the claim is denied. Z. SAHRAIE Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board B. KAYS HUKILL 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.