Citation Nr: 21031956 Decision Date: 05/25/21 Archive Date: 05/25/21 DOCKET NO. 08-36 288 DATE: May 25, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for arthritis in multiple joints is denied. FINDING OF FACT The evidence does not support a finding that the Veteran's arthritis in multiple joints disorder is related to an in-service injury or disease. Arthritis did not manifest itself to a compensable degree within a year of separation from service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for arthritis in multiple joints are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1970 to September 1983. In January 2020, the Board remanded the issue for additional development. The Board finds that there was substantial compliance with the remand directives on appeal as discussed below. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The Board notes that during the period on appeal, the regional office (RO) granted the Veteran service connection for a right wrist disorder. As such, this matter is no longer before the Board. Records reveal that the Veteran complained of problems with his low back, his feet, and his right wrist during service. This pathology is service connected and is not otherwise at issue in the current appeal. 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, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Except as otherwise provided by law, a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits. VA shall consider all information lay and medical evidence of record in a case and when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38C.F.R. §3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). To deny a claim on its merits, a preponderance of the evidence must be against the claim. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518, 519 (1996). For Veterans with 90 days or more of active service during a war period or after December 31, 1946, certain chronic diseases may be presumed to have been incurred in service if they manifest to a compensable degree within one year of separation from service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309; Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Arthritis is on the list of diseases presumed to have been incurred in-service and receives a one-year presumption. Entitlement to service connection for arthritis in multiple joints The Veteran contends that his arthritis in multiple joints is related to his time in-service. After a review of the record, the Bord respectfully disagrees. Service treatment records (STRs) do not reveal any complaints diagnosis or treatments for arthritis in multiple joints. At an examination prior to discharge, the Veteran did not report, nor was he diagnosed with any arthritis of the joints. August 1984 VA outpatient treatment records reveal that the Veteran underwent treatment for right wrist weakness and was diagnosed with arthritis of the right wrist. This diagnosis was not subsequently confirmed, but there was right wrist pathology found that was related to service, as noted above. On a VA examination in May 1984, the Veteran complained of arthritis of multiple joints. This was not found on clinical examination, and pertinent X-rays were negative. In a February 1992 VA back examination radiological findings reveal no evidence of degenerative joint disease or inflammatory joint disease of the shoulders, elbows, or hands. 2002 VA outpatient treatment records reveal that the Veteran was diagnosed with osteoarthritis of the right hip. In a May 2007 VA General examination, the Veteran was not diagnosed with arthritis in multiple joints. October 2007 VA outpatient treatment records reveal that the Veteran underwent a total right hip replacement. July 2009 private treatment records reveal that the Veteran was diagnosed with degenerative joint disease involving multiple joints with acute low back pain. In a November 2010 VA diabetes mellitus examination, the Veteran reported joint pain since 1974. SSA records do not reveal that the Veteran is receiving disability benefits for his reported arthritis in multiple joints. In a June 2019 VA wrist examination, the examiner diagnosed the Veteran's wrist as negative for carpal tunnel syndrome and degenerative or traumatic arthritis, but positive for arthralgias (joint pain) in the right wrist. The Veteran opined that the Veteran's right hand joint pain was related to the Veteran's post-service employment. In a January 2021 VA examiner opinion, the examiner opined that the Veteran's reported arthritis in multiple joints is less likely than not related to an in-service injury, event, or illness. The examiner explained that a review of the record does reveal that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of degenerative disease in several joints such as the back and hips. However, the examiner noted that degenerative disease in each joint is independent medically of one another. The examiner explained that for the Veteran to have a diagnosis of arthritis in multiple joints the Veteran should have a single systemic disease that causes arthritis in multiple joints also known as inflammatory arthritis. The examiner noted that examples of arthritis in multiple joints include rheumatoid arthritis, gouty arthritis, and psoriatic arthritis. The examiner also noted that the record does not show any evidence that the Veteran was diagnosed as having a disease of inflammatory arthritis in-service. Moreover, the examiner noted that the Veteran is not diagnosed with inflammatory arthritis presently. Therefore, there is no multiple joint arthritis diagnosis to be considered. The Board also reviewed the Veteran's lay statements asserting that the onset of his arthritis in multiple joints disorder is related to his time in-service. Lay people are competent to report on matters observed or within their personal knowledge. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). Therefore, the Veteran is competent to provide statements of symptoms which are observable to his senses. However, the Board must emphasize that the Veteran is not competent to interpret accurately clinical findings pertaining to arthritis in multiple joints disorder as this requires highly specialized knowledge and training. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (a)(1) (2018). See also Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). To summarize the Veteran's STRs do not reveal any complaints, diagnosis, or treatments for an arthritis in multiple joints disorder. Furthermore, there is also no indication of any complaints or treatments for any arthritis in multiple joints disorder related to service or for several years post-service. See Mason v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the passage of many years between discharge from active service and the medical documentation of a claimed disability is evidence against a claim of service connection). This premise is further evidenced by the fact that the Veteran did not submit a compensation and pension application for his service-related arthritis in multiple joints disorder until many years after separation from service. While the Veteran has offered complaints of arthritis in multiple joints for many years, including shortly after service, studies proximate to service that would have been expected to confirm those complaints were all negative. As such, service connection for arthritis of multiple joints is not indicated. Therefore, the foregoing summary of the treatment record reveals no possibility for service connection for an arthritis in multiple joints disorder on a direct basis. As indicated above, the Veteran's STRs do not report any findings of treatment for an arthritis in multiple joints disorder. Furthermore, the Board acknowledges the most recent January 2021 VA examiner opinion, the examiner opined that the Veteran's reported arthritis in multiple joints is less likely than not related to an in-service injury, event, or illness. The examiner explained that a review of the record does reveal that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of degenerative disease in a number of joints such as the back and hips; however, the examiner noted that degenerative disease in each joint is independent medically of one another. The examiner explained that that for the Veteran to have a diagnosis of multiple joint arthritis the Veteran should have a single systemic disease that causes arthritis in multiple joints also known as inflammatory arthritis. The examiner also noted that the record does not show any evidence that the Veteran was diagnosed as having a disease of inflammatory arthritis in-service. Moreover, the examiner noted that the Veteran is not diagnosed with inflammatory arthritis presently. Therefore, there is not an arthritis in multiple joints diagnosis to be considered. As the claims file lacks evidence of arthritis in multiple joints disorder in-service and immediately thereafter, the Board finds that the evidence of the record indicates that the Veteran's reported multiple joints arthritis is less likely than not related to an injury, event, or occurrence in-service. As a pathology for arthritis in multiple joints has not been shown to be related to the Veteran's time in-service, the Board finds that the clinical evidence does not support the Veteran's contentions. Based on this evidence, the Board finds service connection is not warranted. The Board has considered the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine; however, the Board does not perceive an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence. The preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the doctrine is not applicable, and the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. MICHAEL D. LYON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Harris, Michael E. 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.