Citation Nr: 21024674 Decision Date: 04/23/21 Archive Date: 04/23/21 DOCKET NO. 16-11 328 DATE: April 23, 2021 ORDER Service connection for residuals of a left leg/knee injury is denied. FINDING OF FACT The evidence of record does not show that the Veteran has residuals of a left leg/knee injury had onset in service or is otherwise related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a left leg injury are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served in the Air Force from June 1978 to September 1979. The Veteran has variously contended that he has residuals of a left leg or knee disorder from service. He requested a videoconference hearing in his substantive appeal. It was scheduled but he did not report and has not requested a new hearing. As such, the request is considered withdrawn. Service Connection Service connection may be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred or aggravated in active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). In general, service connection requires (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Lay evidence may be competent evidence to establish incurrence. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F. 3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (e.g., a broken leg), (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. However, competent medical evidence is necessary where the determinative question is one requiring medical knowledge. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Competent medical evidence means evidence provided by a person who is qualified through education, training, or experience to offer medical diagnoses, statements, or opinions. Competent medical evidence may also mean statements conveying sound medical principles found in medical treatises. Competent medical evidence may also include statements contained in authoritative writings, such as medical and scientific articles and research reports or analyses. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(1). Competent lay evidence means any evidence not requiring that the proponent have specialized education, training, or experience. VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Left Leg/Knee Injury The Veteran is seeking service connection for residuals of a left leg/knee injury. However, his service treatment records (STRs) do not show any pertinent injury, nor do they show any residual disability. VA and private treatment records were reviewed, but no left knee or leg injury was shown, with the exception of a left ankle fracture that was diagnosed and treated in 1996. The evidence of record shows that the Veteran sustained a left ankle injury in 1996, many years after service during a fall from a two-story building. Subsequent x-ray showed an impression of post-traumatic arthritis of the left ankle. The Veteran’s September 1979 Separation Medical Examination did not report any lower extremity or leg injury upon discharge, nor did the Veteran check any boxes to corroborate a leg condition or fractures. There is no evidence of a diagnosis of arthritis during the one-year presumptive period following separation from service. The record references a history of left leg Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT), first noted at an outside institution as per the Veteran sometime in 2012. That clearly occurred well after service, according to a private treatment record in February 2014, whose radiographs demonstrated no acute fracture or dislocation of the left ankle. Rather, they suggest that the Veteran had a “persistent oblique sclerotic density traversing the distal tibial metadiaphysis which appears unchanged suggestive of an old healed fracture deformity,” referencing healing of the aforementioned 1996 left ankle fracture. See March 2016 Medical Treatment Record. A June 2017 Addendum Opinion detailed the pain management plan the Veteran had been placed on to address the chronic and acute residual ankle pain he experienced on occasion. Overall, the Board finds that the evidence of record weighs against the Veteran’s claim for service connection. The Board notes that the Veteran believes that his current left leg/knee pain had onset in service. However, as discussed earlier, the Veteran's lay statements are inadequate to establish the required nexus as he does not possess the requisite medical knowledge and training to opine on the etiology of the Veteran's condition. Jandreau, 492 F.3d 1372. No relationship to service is shown, and pathology, to the extent present was first complained of years after service. Importantly, the evidence still does not show an event, disease, or injury in service. Thus, without medical evidence supporting that the Veteran's current leg pain had onset in service or otherwise related to service, the claim for service connection cannot be granted. Therefore, service connection for left knee condition claimed as left leg injury is denied as there is no evidence of a currently diagnosed left knee condition shown to have been incurred in or aggravated by service. MICHAEL D. LYON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Omosegbon, Babalakin O. 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.