Citation Nr: 21024976 Decision Date: 04/27/21 Archive Date: 04/27/21 DOCKET NO. 15-25 049 DATE: April 27, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a left leg disability other than peripheral neuropathy is denied. Service connection for a respiratory disability is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The weight of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has a left leg disability other than his service-connected peripheral neuropathy. 2. The weight of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has a chronic respiratory disability that is related to service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a left leg disability (other than peripheral neuropathy) are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 2. The criteria for service connection for a respiratory disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the Navy from August 1971 to August 1974, to include service on the offshore waters of Vietnam. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2014 rating decision. The Veteran before the undersigned testified at a Board hearing in January 2019. The Board remanded these matters in May 2019. At the time, the Veteran’s appeal included the issue of service connection for a heart disability. Since then, a March 2020 rating decision granted service connection for status post bypass graft for coronary artery disease. This is a full grant of the benefit sought. Thus, the issue of service connection for a heart disability is no longer on appeal. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left leg disability. The Veteran seeks service connection for a left leg disability, initially described as a left leg injury. See 05/16/2014, Fully Developed Claim. At his January 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran described an accident where a pallet fell on the side of his body; he appeared to indicate that he did not seek treatment for this injury. See 01/08/2019, Hearing Transcript, at 16. Service treatment records show treatment for a left knee injury (diagnosed as mild chondromalacia patella) in April 1972. See 07/16/2014, STR – Medical, at 12-13. Additionally, the Board notes that an October 2014 VA treatment note indicates a history of left calf muscle atrophy due to an accident in service. See 05/02/2017, CAPRI, at 13. Notwithstanding, at the hearing, the Veteran suggested that his current disability is neurological in nature and not due to trauma. In this regard, he reported a history of neuropathy in both legs, with more severe symptoms in his left leg. He first noticed the neuropathy in the 1980s and has had it since then. VA treatment records show a history of diabetes and neuropathy. See 10/09/2014, CAPRI, at 78; 07/02/2017, CAPRI, at 2; 02/08/2019, Correspondence, at 1. In May 2019, the Board remanded for a VA examination. At the time, service connection for lower extremity neuropathy had not been established. This changed in August 2020, when the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) granted service connection for bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy. As such, this decision will focus on whether service connection is warranted for a left leg disability other than the abovementioned peripheral neuropathy. The Veteran underwent a VA examination in January 2021. A DBQ for knee/lower leg conditions is negative for a musculoskeletal disability. In contrast, a DBQ for peripheral nerve conditions shows a diagnosis of foot drop due to the Veteran’s peripheral neuropathy. 01/05/2021, C&P Exam. As the Veteran’s diagnosed foot drop is a manifestation of the service-connected peripheral neuropathy, it is encompassed by the rating assigned for the latter. As such, a separate grant of service connection for foot drop is not for consideration. VA treatment records are silent for a current musculoskeletal left leg disability. Rather, the evidence of record, to include the Veteran’s description of his symptoms, indicate that the Veteran’s current left leg symptoms are neurological in nature and, as such, manifestations of his service-connected peripheral neuropathy. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s suggestion that he has a left leg disability other than the peripheral neuropathy. Unfortunately, the competent medical evidence fails to substantiate this assertion, and the Veteran is not competent to diagnose such a condition, as this requires specialized medical knowledge that he has not been shown to possess. Regarding the existence of a current disability other than the peripheral neuropathy, the Board finds that the medical evidence, both VA examinations and VA treatment records, provide solid evidence to the contrary and outweigh the Veteran’s statements regarding the etiology of a left leg disability other than peripheral neuropathy. The preponderance of the competent evidence does not show that the Veteran has a left leg disability other than his service-connected peripheral neuropathy, the Board finds that service connection for such a disability is not warranted. 2. Entitlement to service connection for respiratory disability. The Veteran seeks service connection for an upper respiratory condition. See 0516/2014, Fully Developed Claim. He believes that the claimed condition is related to hazardous environmental exposure during service aboard the USS America. He has reported exposure to asbestos, fumes and ashes from the ship’s incinerator, and leaking bombs. See 09/18/2014, Statement in Support of Claim; 12/11/2014, NOD; 09/01/2016, Correspondence. In a July 2017 statement, the Veteran described his claimed respiratory disability as bronchitis, pneumonia, and Barrett’s syndrome. See 07/12/2017, Statement in Support of Claim. He again referenced Barrett’s syndrome during his January 2019 Board hearing. See 01/08/2019, Hearing Transcript, at 14. VA treatment notes from September 2016 and December 2016 show treatment for acute bronchitis. See 05/02/2017, CAPRI, at 122 & 167. The September 2016 note indicates that the Veteran declined to undergo X-rays to rule out pneumonia. VA treatment records also note a diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus. Id. at 79. As noted in the May 2019 Board remand, Barrett’s syndrome is a gastrointestinal condition, not a respiratory one. See U.S. National Library of Medicine, “Barrett esophagus,” MedlinePlus, https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001143.htm. As such, it falls outside the scope of the claim currently on appeal. The Veteran, however, is free to submit a separate claim of service connection for Barrett’s syndrome to the RO. In May 2019, the Board remanded for a VA examination. A July 2019 VA examination shows a diagnosis of acute bronchitis (resolved), based on the abovementioned September 2016 VA treatment note. Regarding the etiology of this diagnosis, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s acute bronchitis was less likely than not related to service, to include environmental exposures. The examiner explained that acute bronchitis is a relatively common ailment due to familiar causes, such as viral and perhaps bacterial upper respiratory infections. The examiner further explained that environmental exposures do not play a likely role in this common problem, which in the Veteran’s case is not chronic. Finally, the examiner noted that the Veteran’s primary concern is nighttime coughing and explained that this symptom, which is well documented in the Veteran’s records is likely due to heartburn/GERD. The July 2019 VA opinion shows adequate consideration of the relevant evidence and is supported by a sound medical rationale. As such, it is highly probative. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s assertion that he has a respiratory disability due to environmental exposure in service. The Veteran, however, is not competent to diagnose the nature or etiology of a medical condition, as this requires specialized medical knowledge that he is not shown to possess. Here, the disability at issue requires knowledge of the body’s respiratory system and alignments thereof and the record does not tend to support that the Veteran has competence in this area. Furthermore, he has not submitted any competent evidence to support his claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a). Rather, the probative, competent medical evidence establishes that the Veteran’s recent respiratory symptoms are neither chronic nor at least as likely as not related to service. As the preponderance of the evidence is against a nexus, service connection for a respiratory disability is not warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). Paul Sorisio Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board P. López, 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.