12-32 668

CourtBoard of Veterans' Appeals
DecidedMay 31, 2017
Docket12-32 668
StatusUnpublished

This text of 12-32 668 (12-32 668) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Board of Veterans' Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
12-32 668, (bva 2017).

Opinion

Citation Nr: 1719247 Decision Date: 05/31/17 Archive Date: 06/06/17

DOCKET NO. 12-32 668 ) DATE ) )

On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Togus, Maine

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for a back and leg disability, to include as due to steam burns.

WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL

The Veteran and friend

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Dominic Jones, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from April 1961 to April 1965.

This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2010 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In October 2015, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing.

In March 2016, the Board denied service connection for a bilateral knee disability and a bilateral should disability. At that time, the back and legs claim was remanded in order for the RO to attempt obtain additional service treatment records, and to afford the Veteran a new VA examination.

This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2).

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran has no present burn-related disability attributable to service, nor was his present spine disability incurred in service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for back and leg disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1110, 1131, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2016).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Board has limited the discussion below to the relevant evidence required to support its finding of fact and conclusion of law, as well as to the specific contentions regarding the case as raised directly by the Veteran and those reasonably raised by the record. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Robinson v. Peake, 21 Vet.App. 545, 552 (2008).

I. Duty to Assist

At least a portion of the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) are not available for review. As noted in the Board's March 2016 remand, the Veteran claimed service connection for steam burns to his back and legs. See May 2009 Application for Compensation. He indicated that he was treated for his burn injury at Mayport Military Hospital. See December 2014 RO hearing. Pursuant to the Board's March 2016 remand, the RO attempted to obtain these records. The record reflects that a search was conducted of the records of the Naval Hospital in Mayport, Florida, but no records for the Veteran were located. In light of this information, the Board finds that it is reasonably certain that such records do not exist and that further efforts to obtain the records would be futile. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(c); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2). Additionally, the Board acknowledges its heightened duty to consider carefully the benefit of the doubt where service records were destroyed or are unavailable. See Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 369-70 (2005).

II. Legal Criteria for 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.A. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. "To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a veteran 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"-the so-called "nexus" requirement." Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).

Where 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.A. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990).

III. Analysis

As noted above, the first element of service connection is a present disability. Indeed, 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 present disability, there can be no valid claim. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). The Veteran reported that during service he was burned by steam, which resulted in a large blister on his back and legs, and for which he was hospitalized. See October 2015 Board Hearing.

The Veteran received his first VA examination for his spine in January 2013. The VA examiner provided a diagnosis of "diffuse lumbar spondylosis and DDD, s/p laminectomy L2-3, diffuse DDD and DJD and radiculopathy." However, as the Board noted in its March 2016 remand, the Veteran's statements support a theory of service connection for the residuals of a burn injury, not necessarily a musculoskeletal injury. Therefore, another VA examination was conducted in January 2017 pursuant to the Board's remand to address this theory of entitlement. The VA examiner reviewed the claims file and recounted the Veteran's account of being burned by steam on his back and legs during service. Nonetheless, the examiner stated that the examination revealed no scars on the Veteran's back and legs. Indeed, the examiner concluded there were no findings and no pathology.

The Board finds that service connection is not warranted on this basis. This is so because the Veteran has no present disability as a result of his claimed in-service steam burns. The VA examiner highlighted that the Veteran simply had no pathology related to his report of being burned during service. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim of service connection on this basis, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not applicable.

The Board also notes that in his May 2009 claim, the Veteran noted the disability he was claiming as "Burn Injury." However, beneath this he also noted "back/leg pain." The record reflects the Veteran does have a musculoskeletal disability in the form of diffuse lumbar spondylosis and degenerative disc disease and radiculopathy as noted in the January 2013 VA examination. Considering the Veteran's complaints of pain in his back and legs, the Board finds an additional theory of entitlement reasonably raised, and will address whether the Veteran's musculoskeletal disability is attributable to service.

As noted above, the Veteran had his initial VA examination for his spine in January 2013 and provided a diagnosis of a present disability in the form of diffuse lumbar spondylosis and DDD (degenerative disc disease), s/p laminectomy L2-3, diffuse DDD and DJD (degenerative joint disease) and radiculopathy. The date of diagnosis was noted as 1995.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Holton v. Shinseki
557 F.3d 1362 (Federal Circuit, 2009)
JAMES A. W ASHINGTON v. R. James Nicholson
19 Vet. App. 362 (Veterans Claims, 2005)
Scott v. McDonald
789 F.3d 1375 (Federal Circuit, 2015)
Gilbert v. Derwinski
1 Vet. App. 49 (Veterans Claims, 1990)
Brammer v. Derwinski
3 Vet. App. 223 (Veterans Claims, 1992)
Robinson v. Mansfield
21 Vet. App. 545 (Veterans Claims, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12-32 668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/12-32-668-bva-2017.