Citation Nr: 22014658 Decision Date: 03/14/22 Archive Date: 03/14/22 DOCKET NO. 18-47 764 DATE: March 14, 2022 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for left foot cold injury residuals, to include Raynaud's disease, is granted. Entitlement to service connection for right foot cold injury residuals, to include Raynaud's disease, is granted. Entitlement to service connection for left hand cold injury residuals, to include Raynaud's disease, is granted. Entitlement to service connection for right hand cold injury residuals, to include Raynaud's disease, is granted. Entitlement to service connection for neck condition (claimed as car wreck) is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The evidence of record demonstrates the Veteran's left foot Raynaud's disease is related to the Veteran's left foot cold injury sustained in active-duty service. 2. The evidence of record demonstrates the Veteran's right foot Raynaud's disease is related to the Veteran's right foot cold injury sustained in active-duty service. 3. The evidence of record demonstrates the Veteran's left hand Raynaud's disease is related to the Veteran's left hand cold injury sustained in active-duty service. 4. The evidence of record demonstrates the Veteran's right hand Raynaud's disease is related to the Veteran's right hand cold injury sustained in active-duty service. 5. The evidence persuasively supports the Veteran did not have a current neck disability during the pendency of the appeal, and therefore there is no benefit of the doubt to resolve in the Veteran's favor. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for left foot cold injury residuals, to include Raynaud's disease, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for right foot cold injury residuals, to include Raynaud's disease, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 3. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for left hand cold injury residuals, to include Raynaud's disease, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 4. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for right hand cold injury residuals, to include Raynaud's disease, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 5. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for neck condition (claimed as car wreck) have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served in the United States Army on active duty from September 1990 to May 1991. The issues come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in October 2021. A transcript of the hearing has been included with the record. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may be warranted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). As a general matter, service connection for a disability requires evidence of: (1) the existence of a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a relationship or nexus between the current disability and any injury or disease during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Additionally, certain chronic diseases, including Raynaud's disease, may be presumed to have been incurred during service if the disorder becomes manifest to a compensable degree within one year of separation from active duty. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(a). Alternatively, for chronic diseases shown in service, the third element of service connection may be established through demonstrating chronicity or continuity of symptomatology in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). See Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 1. Entitlement to service connection for cold injury residuals, to include Raynaud's disease, of bilateral hands and feet The Veteran contends that his current disabilities affecting his hands and feet are related to severe cold exposure resulting in frostbite during active-duty service. As a preliminary matter, VA has made efforts to obtain the Veteran's service treatment records. All of the Veteran's service treatment records are not included in the claims file at this time. The RO has searched for those files, but to date, the Veteran's service treatment records, including the Veteran's separation physical examination, have not been found, and a formal finding to that effect was placed in the claims file on November 17, 2016. When there is other evidence in the file that a claimant's service records have otherwise been lost or destroyed, VA has a heightened duty to consider the applicability of the benefit of the doubt rule, to assist a claimant in developing a claim, and to explain its findings and conclusions. See Russo v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 46, 51 (1996); O'Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365, 367 (1991). The legal standard for proving a claim is not lowered; rather, the Board's obligation to discuss and evaluate evidence is heightened. See Russo, 9 Vet. App. at 51. The record contains the Veteran's February 1991 service treatment record, which reveals the Veteran received treatment for numbness and tingling of his fingers and toes. The Veteran reported that he was in a cold climate for long periods of time. The treating physician provided the diagnosis of parasthesia of bilateral feet. The record contains the Veteran's private internal medicine note from September 2016. The Veteran's private physician reported the Veteran's diagnosis of Raynaud's syndrome with cold-induced arterial spasm affecting the Veteran's hands and feet. The private physician noted the Veteran's condition dated back to the Veteran's military cold exposure. The Veteran reported tingling in his fingers and toes since his severe cold exposure during military service. Additionally, the Veteran's September 2019 private treatment record noted the Veteran's frostbite injury in service, and provided a diagnosis of Raynaud's syndrome, with symptoms of numbness, tingling, and occasional pain in his toes. The Veteran testified before the Board in October 2021. The Veteran testified that during a field training exercise in December 1990, he developed frostbite on both his hands and feet. The Veteran reported feeling pain, stinging, tingling, and burning of his hands and feet. The Veteran reported that he was unable to seek treatment during the training exercise, but was later treated for frostbite in an Army hospital. He noted that after developing frostbite, his hands and feet always felt cold. Resolving all reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds the probative lay and medical evidence of record supports a finding that the Veteran's residuals of frostbite, to include Raynaud's disease, affecting the Veteran's hands and feet, are related to his active-duty service. The Veteran is competent and credible to provide lay testimony of severe cold exposure during his December 1990 training exercise. The Veteran's February 1991 service treatment record confirms that the Veteran's symptoms of tingling and numbness of the hands and feet had their onset during service. Additionally, the Veteran as a lay person is competent to provide evidence of his observable symptomatology affecting his hands and feet, including tingling, coldness, numbness, and pain, since his cold weather exposure in service. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011). Further, the Board finds the Veteran's September 2016 private medical record, noting that the Veteran's diagnosis of Raynaud's syndrome of the hands and feet dated back to the Veteran's in-service cold exposure, is probative evidence of a nexus relationship between the Veteran's current disabilities and his active-duty service. Thus, the evidence of record supports finding in favor of service connection, and the Veteran's claims for entitlement to service connection for cold injury residuals of bilateral hands and feet are granted. 2. Entitlement to service connection for neck condition (claimed as car wreck) The Veteran contends that he sustained a neck injury during active service, which resulted in his current neck condition. The Veteran testified in the October 2021 Board hearing that he was involved in a motor vehicle accident in service. The Veteran reported that he went to an Army hospital following the accident for treatment. The Veteran noted that he had neck pain following the accident and continued to experience neck pain after his separation from service in May 1991. The Veteran reported that he continued to experience neck pain but did not seek treatment for his neck condition. The Veteran testified that he used over-the-counter pain medication and massage for pain relief. The Veteran testified that he did not have a formal diagnosis for his neck condition, but he continued to experience pain. The Veteran reported that he was able to move his neck at all times. The Veteran noted that his neck pain sometimes caused a hesitation before turning his head. The Veteran stated that his neck pain did not impair or prevent him from performing any activities. As addressed above, the Veteran's service treatment records are unavailable at this time. When there is other evidence in the file that a claimant's service records have otherwise been lost or destroyed, VA has a heightened duty to consider the applicability of the benefit of the doubt rule, to assist a claimant in developing a claim, and to explain its findings and conclusions. See Russo, 9 Vet. App. at 51; O'Hare, 1 Vet. App. at 367. The Board acknowledges the Veteran is competent to provide lay testimony regarding his in-service motor vehicle accident and subsequent neck injury. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). Additionally, the Veteran is competent to provide lay evidence of his neck pain since service. See Kahana, 24 Vet. App. at 435. In the present case, the issue of service connection for the Veteran's neck condition turns on whether the evidence of record demonstrates the existence of a current disability. Shedden, 381 F.3d at 1166-1167. Here, the Board finds the evidence of record does not support a finding that the Veteran's claimed neck condition rose to the level of a current disability. The Veteran's post-service private medical records are absent of any treatment for the Veteran's claimed neck condition. The Veteran's private medical record from May 2019 notes the Veteran sought treatment for symptoms of numbness and tingling in his hands. The private physician addressed the Veteran's reported symptoms of weakness in his arm, and noted the Veteran did not exhibit evidence of radiculopathy. The private treatment record is absent of complaints of neck pain. Moreover, the Veteran testified at the October 2021 Board hearing that he had not sought treatment for his neck pain and did not have a formal diagnosis of a neck condition. The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; see Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F. 3d 1328, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1997). However, the Board notes that a lack of a formal diagnosis is not dispositive. The term "disability" as used in 38 U.S.C. § 1110 "refers to the functional impairment of earning capacity, not the underlying cause of said disability." See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Board must give consideration to the functional impairment of earning capacity resulting from the Veteran's neck condition. Here, the Veteran reports experiencing neck pain, causing some hesitancy to move his head. The Veteran noted that he was able to move his neck at all times. Notably, the Veteran testified that his neck pain did not impair or prevent the Veteran from performing any activities. The Board finds the evidence of record does not show the Veteran's neck pain impaired the Veteran's ability to perform occupational tasks, and thus the Veteran's claimed neck condition has not demonstrated functional impairment of earning capacity. Saunders, 886 F.3d at 1368. Accordingly, the evidence of record does not show the Veteran has a current disability for the purposes of VA compensation benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1110. In the absence of proof of a current disability, there can be no valid claim. Boyer v. West, 210 F.3d 1351, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). Thus, the Veteran's claim for service connection is denied. The Board concludes that, as the evidence persuasively favors against a grant of service connection for the Veteran's neck condition, it is not in approximate balance, and the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. See Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021). JENNIFER HWA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A.V. Bona, Associate 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.