Citation Nr: 23054331 Decision Date: 09/28/23 Archive Date: 09/28/23 DOCKET NO. 17-62 229A DATE: September 28, 2023 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for right foot cold injury residuals is denied. Entitlement to service connection for left foot cold injury residuals is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disorder other than cold injury residuals and Achilles tendonitis, to include bilateral plantar fasciitis and calcaneal spurs is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran does not have current cold injury residuals of the right foot. 2. The Veteran does not have current cold injury residuals of the left foot. 3. The Veteran does not have a bilateral foot disorder other than cold injury residuals and Achilles tendonitis, including bilateral plantar fasciitis and calcaneal spurs, that manifested in service or that otherwise is related to his military service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Right foot cold injury residuals were not incurred in active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303. 2. Left foot cold injury residuals were not incurred in active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303. 3. A bilateral foot disorder other than cold injury residuals and cold injury residuals, including bilateral plantar fasciitis and calcaneal spurs, were not incurred in active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty service from December 1968 to July 1970. He also had additional service in the United States Army Reserve. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2015 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in September 2021. A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the claims file. The Board previously remanded the case for further development in July 2022. That development was completed, and the case has since been returned to the Board for appellate review. The Board notes that the appeal originally included the issues of entitlement to service connection for hypertension, diabetes mellitus, erectile dysfunction, chronic kidney disease, bilateral hearing loss, sleep apnea, pancreatitis, a right inguinal hernia, and bilateral Achilles tendonitis, to an increased evaluation for a left thumb disability, and to a total evaluation based upon individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU). However, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) subsequently granted service connection for bilateral hearing loss and hypertension, which the Veteran then appealed under the modernization review system created by the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). The Veteran also opted-in to the AMA review system for other remaining issues. As such, these claims are no longer being adjudicated under the legacy system. AMA appeals are adjudicated separately from appeals under the legacy system. Therefore, the AMA appeals will be addressed in separate Board decisions. Law and Analysis Service connection may be established for disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. That an injury or disease occurred in service is not enough; there must be chronic disability resulting from that injury or disease. If there is no showing of a resulting chronic condition during service, then a showing of continuity of symptomatology after service is required to support a finding of chronicity. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). Service connection may also be granted for any injury or disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease or injury was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Except as otherwise provided by law, a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits. VA shall consider all information and 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; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (benefit-of-the-doubt rule not for application when evidence persuasively favors one side or the other). Cold Injury Residuals In considering the evidence of record under the laws and regulations as set forth above, the Board concludes that the Veteran is not entitled to service connection for cold injury residuals of the right and left feet. Notably, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in connection with his claim in January 2023. During that examination, he reported that he sustained a cold injury to his feet while serving in Korea and that he had foot pain and no feeling in his feet. He also indicated that his current symptoms consisted of pain and loss of feeling in his feet. However, after a review of the medical records and a physical examination, the examiner found that there were no findings, signs, or symptoms to support a diagnosis. There is also no other medical evidence showing that the Veteran has had residuals of cold injury to his feet during the appeal period. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran has claimed that that he has residuals of an in-service cold injury. Although lay persons are competent to report observable symptoms and to provide opinions on some medical issues, Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011), as to the specific issue in this case, the diagnosis and etiology of a cold injury residuals, falls outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person, particularly in light of the Veteran's other disorders that may account for his reported symptoms, such as achilles tendonitis, a calcaneal spur, and diabetic polyneuropathy. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Moreover, the Board finds that the January 2023 VA examiner's opinion is more probative in assessing whether the Veteran has current residuals of a cold injury. The VA examiner considered the Veteran's reports, medical records, and physical examination findings, yet found no current disability. His determination was also based upon his own medical knowledge, experience, and training. The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131; see Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328, 1332 (1997) (holding that interpretation of sections 1110 and 1131 of the statute as requiring the existence of a present disability for VA compensation purposes cannot be considered arbitrary). Evidence must show that the Veteran currently has the disability for which benefits are being claimed. Because the evidence shows that the Veteran does not have current cold injury residuals, the Board concludes that service connection is not warranted, and discussion of the remaining elements is not necessary. See Coburn v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 427, 431 (2006) (the absence of any one element will result in denial of service connection). As the weight of the evidence is against the Veteran's claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply, and the claim is denied. Foot Disorder In considering the evidence of record under the laws and regulations as set forth above, the Board concludes that the Veteran is not entitled to service connection for a bilateral foot disorder other than cold injury residuals and Achilles tendonitis. With regard to the claimed plantar fasciitis, the Board notes that the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in connection with his claim in January 2023. During that examination, he reported having pain in his feet, which began in service. However, after a review of the medical records and a physical examination, the examiner determined that the Veteran did not have a diagnosis of plantar fasciitis. The Board does acknowledge the Veteran's assertion that he has plantar fasciitis. Although lay persons are competent to provide opinions on some medical issues, Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011), as to the specific issue in this case, the diagnosis and etiology of plantar fasciitis, falls outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person, particularly given the other diagnoses that may account for his symptoms. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Moreover, even assuming that the Veteran is competent to opine on this matter, the Board finds that the January 2023 VA examiner's opinion has greater probative weight than the more general lay assertions in this regard. The VA examiner considered the Veteran's reports, medical records, and physical examination findings, and he has training, knowledge, and expertise on which he relied to form the opinion. The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131; see Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328, 1332 (1997) (holding that interpretation of sections 1110 and 1131 of the statute as requiring the existence of a present disability for VA compensation purposes cannot be considered arbitrary). Evidence must show that the Veteran currently has the disability for which benefits are being claimed. Because the evidence shows that the Veteran does not have current plantar fasciitis, the Board concludes that service connection is not warranted, and a discussion of the remaining elements is not necessary. See Coburn v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 427, 431 (2006) (the absence of any one element will result in denial of service connection). The Board notes that the January 2023 VA examiner did diagnose the Veteran with a calcaneal spur, but he opined that it was less likely that not that the calcaneal spur status post surgery was less likely than not causally or etiologically related to his military service, to include any symptomatology, injury, marching or running in boots, or the cumulative impact of duties therein. In so doing, the examiner found that there was no documentation of calcaneal spurs in service or evidence that the condition was chronic or recurring in nature. Instead, the examiner explained that calcaneal spur is an age-related deterioration of the joint. The Veteran's service treatment records for both his active duty service and Reserve service, to include his entrance and separation examinations, were negative for any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of a calcaneal spur. A May 2011 private emergency physician record shows that the Veteran was later seen for a foot and ankle injury. It was noted that duration or onset was two weeks. There is also no medical opinion or evidence otherwise showing that the Veteran's calcaneal spur is related to his military service. As the weight of the evidence is against the Veteran's claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply, and the claim is denied. In reaching this determination, the Board again notes that the Veteran has a separate AMA appeal pending for other issues, including the issue of entitlement to service connection for Achilles tendonitis. That issue will be addressed in a separate Board decision. J.W. ZISSIMOS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Rideout-Davidson, Brianne 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.