Citation Nr: 23040697 Decision Date: 07/26/23 Archive Date: 07/26/23 DOCKET NO. 18-24 280 DATE: July 26, 2023 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of a left foot disability. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107;38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from October 1996 to October 2000. This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a February 2016 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In the Veteran's April 2018substantive appeal he requested a Board hearing. Pursuant to the Veteran's request, a hearing was scheduled for September 2021. He did not appear and no good cause for missing the hearing was provided. The request is thus deemed withdrawn. 38 C.F.R. § 20.603(d). In December 2022, the Board granted service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus and remanded the issues of service connection for a right shoulder condition, a left foot condition, and a right knee condition. In a March 2023 rating decision, the RO granted service connection a right knee disability and a right shoulder disability. As the issues of service connection for a right knee disability and a right shoulder disability are considered granted in full, these issues are no longer on appeal. The Board has recharacterized the issues on appeal accordingly. As explained more fully in the subsequent discussion section, the Board finds substantial compliance with the directives from its previous December 2022 remand. Notably, the Veteran underwent a VA examination as ordered by the Board, and an adequate opinion has been obtained. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability. The Veteran is seeking service connection for a left foot disability. The Veteran contends that his left foot injury was from working on the flightlines picking up chains and ropes, and additionally guiding aircrafts manually to their parking spots during service. See April 2018 Form 9. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 C.F.R. § 1110. Generally, the evidence must show: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Caluza v. Brown, 7?Vet. App.?498, 505 (1995). Service connection may be awarded on a presumptive basis for certain chronic diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) that manifest to a degree of 10 percent within 1 year of service separation or during service and then again at a later date. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b); see Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Arthritis is a chronic disease under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309. Evidence of continuity of symptomatology may be sufficient to invoke this presumption if a claimant demonstrates (1) that a condition was "noted" during service; (2) evidence of post service continuity of the same symptomatology; and (3) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of a nexus between the present disability and the post service symptomatology. Barr v. Nicholson, 21?Vet. App.?303, 307 (2007) (citing Savage v. Gober, 10?Vet. App.?488, 49697 (1997)); see 38?C.F.R. §?3.303(b). The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has held that "Congress specifically limits entitlement for service-connected disease or injury to cases where such incidents have resulted in a disability. In the absence of proof of a present disability there can be no valid claim." Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992); see also Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141, 143-44 (1992). Although pain may be a current disability for VA purposes, such is only true if such causes functional impairment. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F. 3d (Fed. Cir. 2018). March 1998 service treatment records (STRs) show that the Veteran complained of a painful left great toe which began three days ago when he struck it during a basketball game. He complained of mild throbbing. The Veteran was diagnosed with a subinguinal hematoma. Additionally, March 1998 STRs show that the Veteran had a left foot hallux subinguinal hematoma. The Veteran reported a distal attachment from the toenail and was slightly tender. The Veteran was diagnosed with resolving subinguinal hematoma. However, on the Veteran's August 2000 Report of Medical Examination for separation, the Veteran's feet were clinically evaluated as normal. In a December 2015 statement, the Veteran stated that he had experienced discomfort in his left foot after a piece of metal fell on his boot and crushed the steel toe part during service. He related that he attended sick bay where his toenail was removed; he was given antibiotics with light duty work for several days. The Veteran stated that he still experienced the discomfort and was unable to wear certain shoes. In a December 2015 statement, the Veteran's wife indicated that the Veteran was very particular about his shoes because of his discomfort in his feet, which had been around since they got married and had gotten worse. In March 2023, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination for foot conditions. The VA examiner reported that the Veteran did not have a current diagnosis associated with any claimed foot conditions. The Veteran reported left foot pain that occurred rather gradually from various activities. He was in the Navy and the stairwells were very steep along with wearing steel toe boots caused pain around the ankle joint. Pain was intermittent and described as a stabbing pain particularly with quick movements. The Veteran did not report any functional loss or impairment. The VA examiner stated that a diagnosis of a left foot condition was not provided due to lack of objective evidence; therefore, an opinion was not warranted. In his statement in December 2015, the Veteran reported that a heavy piece of metal fell on his boot crushing the steel toe part and that when he was seen in sick bay, the toenail was removed. There was no documentation of this incident in the service treatment records. However, the Veteran was seen in March 1998 for painful left great toe for 3 days after striking it during a basketball game and was diagnosed with subungual hematoma which was drained; the nail separated on its own later. In either case, the Veteran did not report any symptoms of the left toe or left foot on current examination. Therefore, no left foot diagnosis could be provided despite the Veteran's wife's observations of left foot discomfort. The Board finds the March 2023 VA medical opinion to be adequate because it took into account the Veteran's lay statements, medical history, and provided a sufficient rationale to support the conclusion that the Veteran did not have a current diagnosis of a left foot disability. Here, although the Veteran contends to have pain in his left foot, the medical evidence of record did not show that his claimed left foot disability caused loss of function or loss of impairment. The Veteran was not diagnosed with a disability. There is no other competent evidence in the claims file reflecting a current diagnosis of a left foot disability, nor does the evidence of record indicate that the Veteran suffers from left foot pain sufficient to result in functional impairment so as to be considered the equivalent of a disability for service connection purposes. The weight of the evidence is against the Veteran's claim, and there is no doubt to resolve. Absent evidence of a current diagnosis or pain productive of functional impairment, the Veteran's claim for service connection for a left foot disability must be denied. Evan M. Deichert Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Crawford, 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.