Citation Nr: 21030663 Decision Date: 05/19/21 Archive Date: 05/19/21 DOCKET NO. 16-48 424 DATE: May 19, 2021 ORDER Service connection for residuals of an allergic reaction to poison ivy and/or poison oak (skin disability) is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has had residuals of an allergic reaction to poison ivy and/or poison oak at any time during or proximate to the pendency of his claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an award of service connection for residuals of an allergic reaction to poison ivy and/or poison oak have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from December 1960 to December 1963. His decorations include the Expert (Rifle M14) Badge. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Louis, Missouri. In March 2020, the Veteran testified at a Travel Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the record. In April 2020 and December 2020, the Board remanded the issue on appeal to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) for additional development. On each occasion, after taking further action, the AOJ confirmed and continued the prior denial and returned the case to the Board. See, e.g., April 2021 supplemental statement of the case. Service connection for residuals of an allergic reaction to poison ivy and/or poison oak is denied. The Veteran seeks to establish service connection for residuals of an allergic reaction to poison ivy and/or poison oak. He asserts that he developed an allergic reaction to poison ivy and/or poison oak during service. He has reported that he came in contact with poison ivy/oak prior to service but had no reaction to it at all. See, e.g., March 2020 Board hearing transcript. 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). The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. Based on the available evidence, the Board must conclude that he does not have current residuals of an allergic reaction to poison ivy and/or poison oak and has not had any such residuals at any time during or proximate to the pendency of his claim. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). Service treatment records reflect complaints of rash and facial swelling due to poison oak. See, e.g., December 1960, March 1961, and May 1961 service treatment records. Private treatment records during the appeal period show no skin complaints and normal examinations of the skin. See, e.g., April 2014, May 2015, and December 2015 VA treatment records. A June 2020 VA examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran currently suffered from residuals of in-service allergic reactions to poison ivy and/or poison oak. The rationale was that the Veteran had produced no documentation of treatment for dermal issues since June 2007, and that he denied the presence of skin disorders in June 2017. However, a review of the Veteran's VA treatment records showed that he sought to see a dermatologist due to complaints of scar tissue from poison ivy/poison oak. See, e.g., November 2016, March 2020, and July 2020 VA treatment records. As such, in December 2020, the Board remanded the matter for a further examination. A March 2021 VA examiner noted that the Veteran did not have a diagnosis of a skin disability. The examiner noted that the Veteran had an episode of an allergic skin reaction during service for which he received steroid treatment from December 1960 until May 1961, with no documented recurrences, ongoing treatment, or scars. The examiner explained that while the Veteran asserted that he might have an allergic reaction again, he was not under any active preventive treatment and did not have any documentation or physical examination findings of dermatological pathology, including residual scars. The examiner further explained that while allergic reactions can occur at any time, including due to prior exposure, that does not mean that the Veteran has a dermatological diagnosis or functional impairment from such, including complications from any ongoing treatment that he is not receiving. The examiner noted that the Veteran's assertions that he had residual scarring lacked medical foundation given that there is no current scarring and because poison oak reactions do not lead to scarring. The Board finds that the March 2021 VA 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). There is no contrary medical opinion of record. The Board has considered the Veteran's statements in this regard. While a diagnosis is not always necessary to establish the presence of a current disability, which may be demonstrated by way of evidence of functional impairment of earning capacity (see Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), the Veteran in this case is seeking service connection for a specific diagnostic entity, and has not asserted or presented evidence of functional impairment of earning capacity. Where the evidence does not support a finding of a current disability upon which to predicate a grant of service connection, there can be no valid claim. See Gilpin v. West, 155 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). Following review of the evidence, the Board finds that the evidence weighs against a finding that the Veteran has current residuals of an allergic reaction to poison ivy and/or poison oak. Because the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). The appeal must be denied. DAVID A. BRENNINGMEYER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Ragheb, 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.