ANKLE IMPAIRMENT OF

Summary

The Veteran, who served from July 2007 to July 2010, appeals the denial of service connection for right and left ankle disorders. The Veteran claimed these ankle conditions were secondary to his service-connected flatfeet. The Board reviewed the evidence of record at the time of the December 2022 agency of original jurisdiction decision. The Veteran's service treatment records were negative for any ankle complaints, treatment, or diagnosis. An April 2010 medical evaluation found the Veteran's ankles to be normal. A November 2022 VA examination acknowledged the Veteran's report of ankle pain attributed to his flatfeet but found no current ankle disorder, noting the absence of supporting findings, signs, or symptoms, and no functional loss or impairment. The Board denied service connection for both ankle conditions, citing the lack of evidence for a current disability, which is a prerequisite for VA compensation. The Board noted that the Veteran could file a supplemental claim if new evidence was submitted after the December 2022 decision. As the weight of the evidence was against the claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule did not apply.

Rationale

Service treatment records negative for ankle disorder; April 2010 medical evaluation found ankles normal; November 2022 VA exam found no current ankle disorder

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A25081029
Decision Date: 09/24/25	Archive Date: 09/24/25

DOCKET NO. 250312-527278
DATE: September 24, 2025

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disorder is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disorder is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran has not been shown to have a right or left ankle disorder since he filed his claim or within close proximity thereto.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1.  The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310.

2.  The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from July 2007 to July 2010.

This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2024 rating decision, which was a higher-level review of a December 2022 rating decision.

In March 2025, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 10182 and elected the direct review docket.  Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the December 2022 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review.  If evidence was submitted during the period after the AOJ issued the December 2022 decision, the Board did not consider it in its decision.  38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801.

If the Veteran would like to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, he may file a supplemental claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501.  If this evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id.  Specific instructions for filing a supplemental claim are included in this decision.

Law and Analysis

The Veteran and his representative have not raised any pre-decisional issues with the duty to notify or duty to assist. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that "the Board's obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board... to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board."); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to a duty to assist argument).

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 disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).

Service connection may also be granted on a secondary basis for disability which is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury.  38 U.S.C. § 1110 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a); Spicer v. McDonough, 61 F.4th 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (holding that secondary service connection is warranted under the causation standard of 38 U.S.C. § 1110 where a nonservice-connected disability would have been less severe but for a service-connected disability, either because there is an etiological link (to include worsening of functionality) between the two, or because the service-connected disability resulted in the inability to treat the nonservice-connected disability).  The Federal Circuit has held that 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(b) is
.  38 U.S.C. § 1110 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a); Spicer v. McDonough, 61 F.4th 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (holding that secondary service connection is warranted under the causation standard of 38 U.S.C. § 1110 where a nonservice-connected disability would have been less severe but for a service-connected disability, either because there is an etiological link (to include worsening of functionality) between the two, or because the service-connected disability resulted in the inability to treat the nonservice-connected disability).  The Federal Circuit has held that 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(b) is inconsistent with 38 U.S.C. § 1110.

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).

In considering the evidence of record under the laws and regulations as set forth above, the Board finds that the Veteran is not entitled to service connection for right and left ankle disorders.

The Veteran's service treatment records are negative for any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of an ankle disorder.  In fact, an April 2010 medical evaluation found that his ankles were normal with no abnormalities, tenderness, pain, or weakness, and he had normal motion.

The Board acknowledges that the Veteran has claimed that he has right and left ankle disorders that are secondary to his service-connected flatfeet.  However, the evidence does not show that he has had a current right or left ankle disorder since he filed his claim in November 2022 or within close proximity thereto.  There are no treatment records documenting any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis.  Moreover, a November 2022 VA examiner acknowledged the Veteran's report of ankle pain that he believed was from his foot condition, but he found that there was no ankle disorder because there are no findings, signs, or symptoms to support a diagnosis.  The examiner also indicated that there was no evidence of pain or swelling upon examination and noted that there was no functional loss or impairment. See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018).  

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 does not show a current disability, no discussion of the remaining elements is 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 appeal is denied.

 

 

J.W. ZISSIMOS

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Deverter, Rebecca M.

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.