Citation Nr: 21022916 Decision Date: 04/19/21 Archive Date: 04/19/21 DOCKET NO. 17-31 468 DATE: April 19, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity neuropathy is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has had a separate left lower extremity neuropathy disability at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity neuropathy have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from April 1993 to May 2005. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran attended a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in February 2020. A transcript of the hearing is of record. This matter was previously remanded by the Board in March 2020. In consideration of the appeal, the Board is satisfied there was substantial compliance with the remand directives and will proceed with review. See, Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The Board notes that the Veteran was granted entitlement to service connection for Morton’s neuroma of his left foot effective April 4, 2014 in an August 2020 rating decision. Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity neuropathy The Veteran contends that he has a current peripheral neuropathy disability of the left lower extremity due to his service. 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). Private treatment records from November 1, 2013 note an assessment and treatment plan from Dr. J.Q. for neuroma intermetatarsal space 3 left foot, hallux limitus bilateral, and peripheral neuropathy. In private treatment records from November 15, 2013, Dr. J.Q. noted an assessment and treatment plan for neuroma intermetatarsal space 3 left foot, hallux limitus bilateral, and difficulty walking. At the February 2020 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he initially was treated by a private physician for his left foot pain, but later went to a VA physician for his foot condition and stated that his VA physician told him that “it was actually a neuroma”. In accordance with the March 2020 Board remand, the Veteran had an examination for his claimed left foot conditions in June 2020. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with Morton’s neuroma of the left foot. The examiner did not diagnose any other condition. The examiner stated that “[t]he Veteran’s records reveal that the foot conditions are defined as plantar fibromatosis, foot pain, and Morton’s metatarsalgia, however, his currently diagnosed conditions found by this examiner are Morton’s neuroma and foot pain.” Based on the above, the Board finds that service connection is not warranted for left lower extremity neuropathy. The Board finds that the record demonstrates that his left lower extremity neuropathy symptoms are attributable to his service-connected Morton’s neuroma, for which he is currently being compensated. The Board finds the June 2020 examination to be highly probative because the examiner’s diagnosis was based on a review of the Veteran’s medical record, lay statements, and an examination of the Veteran. Additionally, the Board notes that Dr. J.Q. noted that the Veteran had an assessment of peripheral neuropathy in November 2013. However, the Board notes that Dr. J.Q. did not note an assessment of peripheral neuropathy in treatment records from later in November 2013. Further, the Veteran testified at the February 2020 Board hearing that he was told by his VA physician that his left foot condition was “actually a neuroma”. Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that the Veteran’s left lower extremity neuropathy symptoms are attributable to his service-connected Morton’s neuroma. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s assertions that he has a left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy disability. While the Veteran is competent to report symptoms of disability, he does not have the specialized medical training to render a specific diagnosis. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Therefore, his assertions are not considered competent and do not weigh against the probative value of the medical treatment records, including the June 2020 examination, which does not show a diagnosis of a separate left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy disability. Absent a showing of a separately diagnosed disability, service connection cannot be granted. Congress specifically limits entitlement for service-connected disease or injury to cases where such incidents have resulted in a disability. See 38 U.S.C. § 1110. In the absence of proof of a current diagnosis of a disability, service connection for that disability cannot be established, and the Veteran’s claim for a low back disability, to include as due to his service-connected left knee disability, must be denied. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992); see also Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328, 1333 (1997) (holding that the existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation). As such, the preponderance of the evidence is against service connection for this claim. Reasonable doubt does not arise, and the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine does not apply; the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Bethany L. Buck Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board David M. Sebstead, 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.