Citation Nr: 21023014 Decision Date: 04/19/21 Archive Date: 04/19/21 DOCKET NO. 14-19 602 DATE: April 19, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a heart disorder is denied. Entitlement to service connection for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is denied. Entitlement to service connection for peripheral arterial disease (artery disorder) is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran had a heart disorder at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim. 2. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that COPD began during active service, or was otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. 3. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that an artery disorder began during active service, or was otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a heart disorder are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 2. The criteria for service connection for COPD are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 3. The criteria for service connection for an artery disorder are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active military service from March 1968 to October 1988. He died in March 2013, and the appellant is his surviving spouse. This matter is on appeal from November and December 2010 rating decisions. It was previously remanded by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) in March 2018. Service Connection 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 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a heart disorder The Veteran contended that he had a heart disorder related to service. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran had a disability that began during service or was at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that the Veteran did not have a diagnosis of a heart disorder prior to his death, and had 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). The December 2020 VA examiner reviewed the claims file, and determined that the Veteran was not diagnosed with a heart disorder. Further, despite treatment from July 2001 to November 2010, VA and private treatment records do not contain a diagnosis of any heart disorder. While the Veteran believed that he had a diagnosis of a heart disorder, he did not have the training or credentials to provide a competent opinion as to a diagnosis or the onset date of such diagnosis. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The evidence also does not show that the appellant has the training or credentials to provide a competent opinion as to a diagnosis. Moreover, there is insufficient lay or medical evidence to suggest that any heart symptoms reached the level of functional impairment of earning capacity. See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In the absence of proof of a disability, there can be no valid claim for service connection. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the competent medical evidence failing to show a diagnosis of a heart disorder, and the appeal must be denied. 2. Entitlement to service connection for COPD The Veteran contended that he had COPD due to exposure to fumes/exhaust from helicopters. May 2011 Notice of Disagreement (NOD). The question for the Board is whether the Veteran had a disability that began during service or was at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran had a diagnosis of COPD, and evidence shows that in-service exposure to fumes/exhaust occurred, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that it began during service or was otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The earliest diagnosis of COPD found in the treatment records is in September 2005, decades after his separation from service. While the Veteran was competent to report having experienced symptoms of breathing difficulties since service, he did not have the training or credentials to provide a competent opinion as to a diagnosis or determine that those symptoms were manifestations of COPD. Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377 n.4. Further, the December 2020 VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s COPD was not at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The rationale was that it was more likely due to smoking two packs of cigarettes per day since age 20. The examiner cited to medical literature showing that cigarette smoking caused 90 percent of all cases of COPD. The medical literature discussed how cigarette smoking induced oxidative damage on cells. The examiner’s opinion is probative, because it is based on an accurate medical history and provides an explanation that contains clear conclusions and supporting data. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). The Veteran believed that his COPD was related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The record does not show that the Veteran had the medical training or credentials to provide a competent nexus opinion regarding this issue. Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377 n.4; see also Kahana v. Shinseki, 24. Vet. App. 428 (2011). The evidence also does not show that the appellant has the training or credentials to provide a competent opinion as to the Veteran's COPD being related to service. Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the December 2020 VA examiner’s opinion in denying this claim. 3. Entitlement to service connection for an artery disorder The Veteran contended that he had an artery disorder due to his military service. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran had a disability that began during service or was at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran had a diagnosis of an artery disorder, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that it began during service or was otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The earliest diagnosis of peripheral arterial disease found in the treatment records is in July 2004, decades after his separation from service. While the Veteran was competent to report having experienced symptoms of leg problems since service, he did not have the training or credentials to provide a competent opinion as to a diagnosis or determine that those symptoms were manifestations of peripheral arterial disease. Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377 n.4. Further, the December 2020 VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s artery disorder was not at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The rationale was that the claims file was silent for treatment until 2005. The Veteran's peripheral arterial disease was more likely due to smoking two packs of cigarettes per day since age 20. The examiner cited to medical literature showing that cigarette smoking was one of the most important risk factors for peripheral arterial disease. Smoking increased the risk by seven fold, and was a more influential risk factor than coronary artery disease. The medical literature discussed how multiple pathophysiologic mechanisms may account for the prevalence of atherosclerosis in cigarette smokers. The examiner’s opinion is probative, because it is based on an accurate medical history and provides an explanation that contains clear conclusions and supporting data. Nieves-Rodriguez, 22 Vet. App. at 304. The Board acknowledges the evidence shows the first year of treatment was in 2004, and the examiner incorrectly identified it as being in 2005. The Board still finds the opinion highly probative since the examiner’s rationale relies on peripheral arterial disease being related to cigarette smoking. The Veteran believed that his artery disorder was related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The record does not show that the Veteran had the medical training or credentials to provide a competent nexus opinion regarding this issue. Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377 n.4; see also Kahana, 24. Vet. App. 428. The evidence also does not show that the appellant has the training or credentials to provide a competent opinion as to the Veteran’s artery disorder being related to service. Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the December 2020 VA examiner’s opinion in denying this claim. A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Barstow, 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.